1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began.
3. The universe must have an external cause.
Most theists submit that time began with the universe and say that god was a timeless external agent who caused the universe, time and space to exist, but how can a being that is timeless cause time if causality as we know it only exists in time? How can god exist before the universe and time? To exist before time would mean there was a time before time began? That is a contradiction. All causal relations and their effects as we know them exist in time and space and are not possible or conceivable outside of the universe as we know it.
What do you think?|||Hi, Jonathas!
The argument you have presented is merely an encapsulation of the CA. What you have presented is a deductively valid argument. However, the premises have been defended (and attacked) for quite some time.
First, a slight rewording:
1) Every effect has a cause.
2) The Universe is an effect.
3) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Theists aren't the only ones who insist time is concomitant with matter in motion. Time, defined, is a non-spatial continuum in which events are measured in apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present and to the future. No less than Stephen Hawking and others confirm "time" begins with the beginning of the Universe. Scientific consensus is that the Universe (at least the one we can see) began to exist, so there's really not much controversy here.
At this point, scientists do not know *how* the Universe began, but the theory is that it sprang from a "singularity" (zone of infinite density) nearly 14 billion years ago. How a zone can be "infinitely" dense nobody can explain. Infinity is an abstract mathematical concept having no "real-world" existence. It's fun to play with on paper, but logical contradictions abound when applied to physical situations. Since logical contradictions, applied to real-world situations, cannot produce a coherent argument, we cannot rationally accept the concept of an infinite Universe. Moreover, the Universe would long ago have suffered heat death if the material past is infinite. From the evidence we now have, the Universe began to exist. That means the Universe is an effect needing a cause.
Now, back to the CA. When we say every effect is caused, we are expressing a rationally undeniable proposition. It's like saying all circles are round or all bachelors are unmarried. So, whether one says "begins to exist" or "every effect is caused," an opponent is left with extremely limited logical possibilities. Existence begins from:
a) Nothing.
b) Something.
One can possibly add "illusion" as an option, but since existence is existentially undeniable, we can easily dispense with it.
Let's take a trip backward in time. All our observations confirm time is linear. In the absence of contradictory evidence, we would never reach the beginning if the material past is infinite. You can always add a second, minute, hour, day, week, month or year the further back you go. Since we have arrived at the present moment, the past cannot be infinite. Hence, whether there is one Universe or one-thousand, matter cannot be eternal.
If we do not posit a transcendent cause (i.e. a transcendent personal or impersonal being), then our only option is the Universe sprang from nothing. But if it sprang from nothing, this "nothing" would at least have the property that something could spring from it. But if nothing has properties or characteristics, then it is no longer nothing, it is something. One must equivocate to sustain this premise.
Atheists often decry "goddidit" arguments because they inhibit scientific inquiry. However, scientific inquiry will not be satisfied with Universes popping into existence out of nothing. Ever since spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, scientists ALWAYS look for cause(s) to phenomena. The CA isn't a "godditit" argument. It is a rational examination of phenomena.
Since the first and second premises of the CA are philosophically sound and scientifically sustainable, the conclusion necessarily follows: The Universe has a cause.
You suggest a contradiction by asking, "How can god [sic] exist before the universe [sic] and time? To exist before time would mean there was a time before time began? That is a contradiction." No it is not. Remember, a contradiction can only occur if there is NO LOGICALLY POSSIBLE harmonization of conclusions. That is, when two conclusions form logical inversions of each other, you have a contradiction. If time is concomitant with matter in motion, then any reference to a "preexisting" being or cause is a reference to a transcendent being or moment. In other words, time, in a transcendent sense is not material time. Hence, one can speak of a logical "prior point" without contradiction because the transcendent "moment" cannot be measured by material time.
Moreover, you say, "All causal relations and their effects as we know them exist in time and space and are not possible or conceivable outside of the universe [sic] as we know it." Obviously, there can be no material cause and effect prior to matter. **That** would truly be nonsensical. What is not incoherent is the assertion the Universe has a beginning.
Something caused the Universe's existence. If something caused matter (energy), space and time, then the cause obviously transcends those dimensions.
Further, existence is not only a linear chain, but moment-to-moment. Existence is uncaused, self-caused or caused by another. There are several types of causation, but I'll mention only two: efficient and instrumental. A brush, paint and canvas are the instrumental causes of a painting, but the efficient cause is the painter. No instrumental cause can ground the painting. Hence, the ground of the painting is the painter. Since self-causation is impossible and since we are not uncaused (for reasons not now germane), we are caused by another. Consequently, our efficient causation is a transcendent being.
There are additional logically rigorous arguments why the transcendent cause is personal and good, but they are beyond the scope of your question.
If you would like to discuss this further, I welcome your emails.
Kind regards,
Scalia
*EDIT*
Let us not forget the words of atheist Quentin Smith:
"The response of atheists and agnostics to this development [Big Bang] has been comparatively weak, indeed almost invisible. An uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among non-believers . . . . The reason for the embarrassment of non-theists is not hard to find. Anthony Kenny suggests it in this statement: 鈥楢 proponent of [the Big Bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.'"|||Hello again, Jonathas! Thank you for the "best answer." Feel free to email me anytime.
Best wishes,
Scalia
Report Abuse
|||Ugh. I count at least four logical flaws in that answer. Begging the question is the least of them.
Report Abuse
|||Doctor Why, we meet again. My email account is still active. You can either post here or email me the "logical flaws" of my presentation. Space does not permit a thorough defense of every point, but of course you know that. Sharpen your rhetorical knife because I'm ready.
Report Abuse
|||Dr., if you want a full defense of the argument, let me know and I'll send you the links. I don't think the questioner would appreciate me typing the equivalent of 100 pages of material.
Report Abuse
|||Well, probably the shortest one is your re-envisioning of Zeno's Paradox. You say, "Since we have arrived at the present moment, the past cannot be infinite."
But ultimately I suppose the asker chose the answer that worked best for him. I'm not sure there's a point in us hashing it out. Peace.
Report Abuse
|||Y, Zeno's Paradox confuses mathematical abstraction with the physical world. As I said, contradictions abound when one applies infinity to real-world situations. That's why it is irrational to insist the Universe is infinite.
Report Abuse
|||Of course, you are under no obligation to debate this with me. This forum necessarily requires truncated answers. Till later, take care.
Report Abuse
|||1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.|||Couldn't it be that an eternal being exists outside of time and is in no way bound by time. If a being always has been and always will be then time means nothing to them. Time, as we know it, began when the initial cause took place.|||In logic, we would say that the argument you provided is valid but not sound. In other words, if all the premeses were true the conclusion would be... but the premeses are NOT all true. In fact, it could be argued that none of them are.
Take, for example, the Big Bang. In physics, this is just a way of tracing back what the past probably looked like going from what it looks like now. But once you get to a singularity, you have a problem... the rules of physics can't predict what came before that. Maybe it all popped into existence, maybe it was another universe that collapsed to that point, or maybe something else entirely. We have no way of predicting it.
Even if we decide arbitrarily that it did 'begin' at some point, the first premise is so full of problems that it's hard to say exactly where to begin poking holes in it. There's the problem of induction - even if we had a million universes to examine and they all had creators, that doesn't prove that ALL of them do, just as having a flipped coin come up heads a bunch of times doesn't prove it can't land tails-side-up. There's the fallacy of composition - even if we decide that everything in the universe had a cause, that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has a cause, just like you aren't immune to stab wounds even though the atoms that make you up are.
In the end, the argument plays to a prejudice that most of us have; perhaps one that is even instinctive. We are accustomed to living in a world of cause and effect, though this is based only on our experiences on this tiny planet. We are so accustomed to it that it's hard to imagine anything else. Way back when, even Aristotle considered the possibility that the universe just always was, but he rejected the notion because it just didn't seem right. And oddly he did the same thing that many theists do - he decided instead that it was some deity instead that always was. Just swapping out one problem for another, really, but it's easier to imagine because it's something completely removed from the universe. So it goes.|||G The cause is contained within. It does not require an external cause like a deity. Dynamic processes ARE and take care of themselves without intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment