The Universe is not self-contained or self-existent or self-explanatory...

QUESTION 1: Could you explain how atheists might have seen the necessity of our reality to be a self-contained or causally closed or complete system, in order for their atheism to be rational?

Certainly. For many atheists, the belief in a universe that is self-contained or causally closed forms a rational basis for their atheism. Here's why:

1. Causal Closure as a Counter to Intervention: If the universe is causally closed, then every event within the universe has a cause within the universe itself. This would mean there's no need for any external agent (like a deity) to intervene in or initiate any events. A universe that's causally closed, in this view, negates the need for any "first mover" or external force to set things in motion.
2. Naturalistic Explanations: Atheists often prioritize naturalistic explanations for phenomena. A universe that is self-contained and obeys consistent laws provides a framework where natural processes, rather than supernatural interventions, are responsible for everything we observe. A causally closed system lends itself well to this viewpoint because it doesn't allow for external (and potentially supernatural) influences.
3. Consistency with Scientific Observation: Most of the laws and principles we've discovered in science imply a kind of causal closure. For instance, the conservation laws (like the conservation of energy) seem to describe a universe where quantities are conserved and not randomly interfered with from outside. Atheists may argue that this consistent observation of causal closure in scientific experiments suggests a universe without external divine interventions.
4. Ockham's Razor: This is a principle suggesting that the simplest explanation (the one with the fewest assumptions) is often the best. If the universe operates as a closed system with consistent laws, then there's no need to introduce the added complexity of a deity or external force. Many atheists find the idea of a self-regulating, causally closed universe simpler and more parsimonious than one with a deity.
5. Metaphysical Naturalism: Many atheists adhere to a philosophical view called metaphysical naturalism, which holds that everything that exists is part of the natural world and can be studied through natural sciences. A self-contained or causally closed universe fits neatly within this worldview.

However, it's worth noting that the concept of a causally closed universe doesn't automatically negate the possibility of a deity for everyone. Some theists might argue that a god set up the universe with these closed causal chains and doesn't interfere with them. Others might argue that a deity works within the causal chains in ways that are indistinguishable from natural processes. Moreover, some atheistic views don't depend on causal closure at all.

It's also worth pointing out that not all atheists base their atheism on the belief in a causally closed universe. Atheism is a broad category with many diverse views and reasons for disbelief in deities. QUESTION 2: When quantum physics became known and experimentally confirmed, what happened to the idea that the universe is self-contained or a closed system with only deterministic causal effects in it? The development and experimental confirmation of quantum physics in the early 20th century profoundly challenged our classical intuitions about determinism, causality, and the nature of reality. Let's break down the implications:

1. Breakdown of Classical Determinism: In classical physics, given the state of a system at a particular time, its future state was uniquely determined by its equations of motion (think Newton's laws). Quantum mechanics challenges this notion through the inherent uncertainty described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of quantum events. For example, while we can compute the probability that a radioactive atom will decay within a certain time frame, we cannot predict the exact moment it will decay.
2. Superposition & Wavefunction Collapse: Quantum mechanics introduces the idea of superposition, where quantum systems can exist in a combination of multiple states simultaneously. When a measurement is made, this superposition collapses to a single state. This raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and how measurement brings about a particular outcome.
3. Entanglement & Non-locality: Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where particles become correlated in such a way that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of another, no matter the distance between them. This "spooky action at a distance" (as Einstein called it) challenges our classical intuition about locality and causality. The famous Bell's theorem and subsequent experiments confirmed that this non-locality is a genuine feature of our universe, and not due to some "hidden variables."
4. Closed Systems and Conservation Laws: The idea that the universe is a closed system with conservation laws (like conservation of energy) isn't negated by quantum mechanics. In fact, quantum mechanics respects these conservation laws. However, the concept of a "closed system" gets more nuanced, especially when considering quantum entanglement and phenomena like quantum teleportation.
5. Philosophical Implications: Quantum mechanics has spawned a number of philosophical interpretations, ranging from the Copenhagen interpretation, which emphasizes the role of the observer, to the many-worlds interpretation, which suggests that every quantum event results in a branching of the universe into multiple paths. Each interpretation has its own stance on determinism, reality, and causality.

In summary, quantum mechanics shifted our perspective from a deterministic, causal universe to one where probability, uncertainty, and non-locality play fundamental roles. While the deterministic equations of classical physics still apply remarkably well to macroscopic objects, at the quantum level, our understanding of causality and determinism had to be re-evaluated and expanded.

QUESTION 3: Could you explain how atheists might have seen the necessity of our universe to be a self-existent or a closed and complete system, in order for their atheism to be rational? The debate between atheism and theism often delves into cosmological arguments, where the nature and origins of the universe become central topics of discussion. For some atheists, believing in a self-existent or closed and complete universe is one way to offer an alternative to theistic claims of a creator or external cause for the universe. Here's a brief overview of this line of thought:

1. Avoiding Infinite Regress: One of the main arguments for a self-existent universe is to avoid the problem of infinite regress. If everything has a cause, then what caused the first cause? A self-existent universe doesn't require an external cause, thus circumventing this problem.
2. Occam's Razor: From a philosophical perspective, the principle of Occam's Razor suggests that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. By this principle, a universe that exists without external causes or deities might be seen as simpler and more parsimonious than one that requires a divine creator.
3. Causality and Temporality: Some atheists argue that causality, as we understand it, is a property within our universe and might not apply to the universe as a whole. If the Big Bang was the beginning of time itself, then asking what came before it or what caused it might be a non-sequitur. In this view, the universe doesn't need an external cause because causality doesn't apply outside of it.
4. Closed and Complete System: By proposing that the universe is a closed and complete system, atheists can argue that all phenomena, including the universe's origins, can be (or will be) explained by natural processes and laws without invoking the supernatural.
5. Multiverse Hypotheses: Some theories in cosmology suggest that our universe might be just one of many in a vast multiverse. If true, this opens the possibility that universes can arise spontaneously from some broader cosmological context, making the existence of our particular universe less extraordinary and potentially diminishing the need for a divine creator.
6. Quantum Cosmology: Developments in quantum mechanics have led to models where the universe can originate from a quantum fluctuation. This offers a naturalistic explanation for the universe's origin without the need for external causes.

It's important to note that atheism, at its core, is a lack of belief in deities. How atheists conceptualize or interpret the origins and nature of the universe can vary widely. Not all atheists may feel the need for the universe to be self-existent or a closed system, just as not all theists base their belief on cosmological arguments.

Moreover, while cosmological insights can inform philosophical and theological discussions, science doesn't definitively prove or disprove the existence of deities. Science focuses on explaining the natural world using empirical evidence, and while it can provide explanations for the origins and nature of the universe, questions of ultimate purpose or divine existence often fall into the realm of philosophy or theology. QUESTION 4: When Big Bang cosmology became known and experimentally confirmed, what happened to the idea that the universe is self-existent with no beginning or no need to be causally finite? The discovery and subsequent experimental confirmation of the Big Bang cosmology had profound implications for our understanding of the universe's origins and its temporal nature. Here's a brief overview of how these ideas evolved:

1. Steady State Theory: Before the Big Bang model gained wide acceptance, the Steady State model was a popular cosmological theory. Proposed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle in the late 1940s, the Steady State theory posits that the universe has no beginning or end in time and appears the same from every location at all times. It maintains the universe's constant density by proposing the continuous creation of matter in tiny amounts over time.
2. Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation: In the mid-1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the CMB, a relic radiation from the early universe. This discovery provided strong evidence in favor of the Big Bang model and posed significant challenges for the Steady State model, which had difficulty accounting for this ubiquitous radiation.
3. Implications for the Universe's Temporality: The Big Bang model suggests that the universe had a definite beginning, implying it isn't eternally self-existent in its current form. This raised philosophical and theological questions about the nature of this beginning and whether the universe required an external cause.
4. Modern Cosmological Questions and Developments: The Big Bang's singularity—the point of infinite density at the universe's beginning—poses challenges for physics because our current understanding breaks down under such conditions. Various models and theories, such as cosmic inflation, quantum cosmology, and string theory, aim to address these issues and possibly bypass the singularity. Some of these models even suggest scenarios in which our universe could be one of many in a multiverse, each with its own Big Bang, or that our universe might undergo cycles of expansion and contraction.
5. Metaphysical Considerations: The notion of a universe with a beginning led some to argue for the necessity of an external cause or "prime mover." Others have explored models where the universe can arise from a quantum fluctuation or from pre-existing states in a broader cosmological context, potentially removing the necessity for an external cause.

In summary, while the Big Bang cosmology has provided a robust and widely accepted explanation for the universe's origins, it has also stimulated further questions about the nature of the universe's existence and the potential need for an external cause. As a result, the idea that the universe might be self-existent and eternal hasn't entirely vanished but has evolved in response to new data and theories.

QUESTION 5: Could you explain how atheists might have seen the necessity of our reality to be a self-explanatory closed or complete system, in order for their atheism to be rational? The question touches upon deep philosophical and cosmological issues, and any answer will be a broad overview, as people's beliefs and rationales are diverse. However, the underlying idea is that some atheists believe the universe should be able to explain itself without invoking a deity or external force. Here's a more in-depth breakdown:

1. Naturalism and Rational Explanation: A central tenet for many atheists is naturalism – the idea that everything can be explained by natural causes and laws without invoking the supernatural. For atheism to be seen as a rational stance (from this perspective), all phenomena, including the origins and properties of the universe, should ideally be explainable within a closed system of natural laws. If the universe were shown to require an external explanation or cause, it would challenge this naturalistic worldview.
2. Occam's Razor: This philosophical principle suggests that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. If the universe can be explained as a closed system without invoking a deity, then, by Occam's Razor, it's more parsimonious not to introduce the concept of a god.
3. Avoidance of Infinite Regress: If every event or phenomenon in the universe required an external cause, this would lead to an infinite regress of causes (i.e., if A caused B, and A was caused by C, and C was caused by D, and so on infinitely). A self-explanatory, closed system would, in theory, prevent this regress.
4. Cosmological Arguments: Some theistic arguments, such as the Kalam cosmological argument, posit that everything that begins to exist has a cause and, since the universe began to exist, it too must have a cause (which some argue is God). If the universe is a self-explanatory system, then it doesn't necessarily need an external cause, countering this line of reasoning.
5. Independence from Gödel's Theorems: While Gödel's incompleteness theorems have deep implications for formal systems in mathematics, their direct application to the universe and atheism is more metaphorical than literal. An atheist could rationally argue that even if there are truths within the universe that are inaccessible to us or unprovable from within the system, it doesn't necessarily imply the need for a deity.
6. Existential and Philosophical Reasons: Some atheists might argue from an existential or phenomenological standpoint. They might claim that even if the universe isn't a closed system or entirely self-explanatory, it doesn't automatically validate the concept of a god. The unknown or unexplained doesn't need to be filled with a deity; it could remain an acknowledged mystery.

In summary, the notion of the universe as a self-explanatory or closed system aligns with some atheists' desires for a coherent, naturalistic explanation of reality. While not all atheists might see this as a necessity, for many, it strengthens their philosophical position. However, it's essential to note that atheism, like theism, contains a broad range of beliefs and ideas, and individual reasons for adopting atheism can be varied and multifaceted. QUESTION 6: When the incompleteness of all formal logical systems became a logical proof as confirmed by Kurt Gödel, what happened to the idea that the universe is self-explanatory or a closed system with no need for external explanatory inputs? Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems, first published in 1931, have profound implications for the foundations of mathematics and the philosophy of logic. The theorems are generally stated as:

1. In any consistent, formal mathematical system that is capable of expressing the basic arithmetic of the natural numbers (such as Peano arithmetic), there exist true propositions that cannot be proven within that system.
2. No such system can prove its own consistency.

These results shook the mathematical world, especially those who followed the formalist approach championed by people like David Hilbert, who hoped to ground all of mathematics on a solid and complete logical foundation.

In terms of its implications for the universe or the nature of existence:

1. Philosophical Implications: Philosophers of science and metaphysics have speculated on the potential meanings of Gödel’s theorems. Some argue that the incompleteness theorems suggest there are inherent limitations to what can be known or comprehended, while others are more conservative in their interpretations.
2. The Universe as a Logical System: If one views the universe as analogous to a logical system, Gödel’s theorems might suggest that there are truths about the universe that cannot be derived from a fixed set of axioms or rules. This would mean that there's always more to the universe than can be explained by any single "theory of everything".
3. Theism and External Inputs: Some theists and philosophers argue that Gödel’s theorems could be seen as suggesting the universe might need an "external" explanation — that is, something outside of its own system to account for its existence and nature. However, this interpretation is highly controversial and not universally accepted, as the jump from formal logical systems to cosmological or metaphysical conclusions is a large one.
4. Limitations of Mechanistic Determinism: For some, Gödel’s work shows that no mechanistic system (including potential models of the human mind) can fully account for all aspects of its own functioning. This challenges reductionist views that see everything, including consciousness, as entirely computable.

In conclusion, while Gödel's theorems don't provide definitive answers about the nature of the universe, they do challenge certain assumptions and inspire a variety of philosophical discussions. The idea that the universe is self-explanatory or a closed system is still a topic of debate, and Gödel's theorems add a layer of complexity to such discussions.