Second Rejoinder - Shandon L. Guthrie

First, premise (i) does not seem to be in much dispute in this exchange if the problem is not with reifying the claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause" but with something else. I guess I'll take this as given.

Secondly, I think it is important to notice that I am arguing, not for reifying the universe, but for explaining its origin. However, it is interesting that in Hodge's last post one must believe that in order to say that the universe really didn't begin to exist one must believe that the universe is an abstract object. But is this really tenable? I think not for the reasons I initially gave in favor of premise (ii). More importantly, the space-time universe is not a universal but a singular continuum containing all matter and space. If Hodge wants to make the universe an unreal universal concept, I think that such a peculiar claim would require support.

Thirdly, Hodge claims that the second premise relies exclusively on science. This, too, is false. I gave one argument from astrophysical cosmology and one from the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite.

Fourthly, Hodge seems to deny that the competing models to the Big Bang are false. Now this is an interesting claim because he has not provided reasons why a competing model is preferable to the Big Bang. By contrast, the vast consensus of astronomers today believe that the steady-state and cyclical models are utterly unsupported. The steady-state contradicts observation and entropic laws while the latter cannot be explained in terms of how the cycles "bounce back," not to mention the deficiency of mass in the universe necessary to close it.

This brings us to questioning the Big Bang model itself. Hodge surmises that redshift does not prove this model because the universe does not have a center. However, this is not a proper understanding of the model. What astronomers cannot figure out is where the center is, not that a center does not exist. Secondly, redshift proves that the stars and galaxies are receding from our observational standpoint equally in all directions. This bespeaks the expansion of the universe. But if Hodge finds the Big Bang unsavory, he must provide better reasons to disavow it.

Fifthly, does premise (iii) equivocate on "cause" according to Hodge? I do not think so. I grafted the argument such that we are looking for a productive cause of the universe, however that may be defined. In effect, I am pressing for how Being came from non-Being.

Sixthly, it is false to associate God's function as Creator with his essence. I guess Hodge will have to understand what a classic theist means by immutable in addressing the immutability of God. Immutability is defined by Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Thomas V. Morris as "a property which is both enduring and immemorial" (Morris, Anselmian Explorations, p. 77) which is to say that one is immutable if (a) the being cannot cease to have a property, and (b) the being cannot have begun to have that property. Creation cannot possibly suffice for (a) or (b) otherwise if creating is a necessary property then, necessarily, whatever exists eternally with the potential to create must, necessarily, be co-eternal with its creation. And this is just simply false if not incomprehensible. Hodge has to show why creating must conform to (a) and (b) if anyone is to take this seriously.

Therefore, let the reader understand that with strange affirmations of making the universe an abstract object and denying the consensus of astronomy, we are obligated to survey some good reasons to accept such fantastic claims. I think theism better explains the problem.