July 17, 2006 article edited on June 9, 2023 and a version placed on academia.edu
Castle Conwy, Wales
The picture is of a friend and I back in 2001.
The First Cause argument
Introduction
This is not a review of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, but a look at the related idea of first cause, using William Lane Craig’s kalam[1] cosmological argument as a guide.
William Lane Craig
He presents the kalam cosmological argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive
addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[2]
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Randomness
Metaphysical intuition states that something cannot come out of nothing.[3] Craig deduces that in regard to the universe, if there were originally nothing, including no God, the universe could not come into existence. However, with the existence of an eternal God, the creator could have brought about creation and matter ex nhilio (out of nothing).[4]
Victor Gijsbers in contrast states scientifically that many events in nature are random, including quantum[5] processes. He notes that it is difficult to prove cause and effect.[6] For clarity, I wish to provide a scientific definition of randomness. Lawrence Sklar in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines randomness within the philosophy of science. He describes the intuitive distinction between a sequence that is random and one that is orderly and how they play a role in the probability theory of dynamic systems.[7] Sklar also writes that there are subjectivist definitions of randomness which focus on the inability of an agent to determine, by knowledge, future occurrence in a sequence, and there are objectivist definitions of randomness which seek to describe it without reference to any agent.[8]
I am not a scientist, but philosophically speaking it seems reasonable to deduce that apparent randomness or disorder could occur within matter that has previously been caused in an orderly way. After a cause brings about the process that produces matter, apparent randomness and disorder could occur. However, it seems questionable and contradictory to state that initial randomness and disorder could lead to complex processes. I can see disorder occurring in material that was previously ordered, but it is much more difficult to deduce that matter in disorder can structure itself in any kind of complex form.
The picture is of a friend and I back in 2001.
The First Cause argument
Introduction
This is not a review of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, but a look at the related idea of first cause, using William Lane Craig’s kalam[1] cosmological argument as a guide.
William Lane Craig
He presents the kalam cosmological argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive
addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[2]
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Randomness
Metaphysical intuition states that something cannot come out of nothing.[3] Craig deduces that in regard to the universe, if there were originally nothing, including no God, the universe could not come into existence. However, with the existence of an eternal God, the creator could have brought about creation and matter ex nhilio (out of nothing).[4]
Victor Gijsbers in contrast states scientifically that many events in nature are random, including quantum[5] processes. He notes that it is difficult to prove cause and effect.[6] For clarity, I wish to provide a scientific definition of randomness. Lawrence Sklar in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines randomness within the philosophy of science. He describes the intuitive distinction between a sequence that is random and one that is orderly and how they play a role in the probability theory of dynamic systems.[7] Sklar also writes that there are subjectivist definitions of randomness which focus on the inability of an agent to determine, by knowledge, future occurrence in a sequence, and there are objectivist definitions of randomness which seek to describe it without reference to any agent.[8]
I am not a scientist, but philosophically speaking it seems reasonable to deduce that apparent randomness or disorder could occur within matter that has previously been caused in an orderly way. After a cause brings about the process that produces matter, apparent randomness and disorder could occur. However, it seems questionable and contradictory to state that initial randomness and disorder could lead to complex processes. I can see disorder occurring in material that was previously ordered, but it is much more difficult to deduce that matter in disorder can structure itself in any kind of complex form.
For example, the human body has the appearance of being structured and ordered, but there can be apparently random events that take place within it, or corruption and disorder that takes place because of disease or injury. In contrast, I would deduce that a disordered mass of human material could never produce any actual person; there would always be a need for a cause and order for an actual human being to exist. Cause and effect seem a reasonable conclusion in regard to the existence of a complex material being, as matter and the universe seemingly require a cause to exist, and the effects can be seen in the development process, which could include certain events taking place which seem apparently random, but likely have some type of cause which may not as of yet been observed.
A new born baby may have not been scientifically planned in a laboratory, but seemingly it has a genetic code that makes it specifically human so that it would not have likely developed by a random process from disorder. The order and structure of a new born baby assures that it will not be a new born ape, for example. However, within the genetic structure of a new born human being, there may very well be apparently random events that take place, or there may be planned events that are simply beyond complete human scientific comprehension.
Who created God?
An objection arises, who created God? Gijsbers states that even if the first cause argument is valid, then God would have to have a cause as well.[9] However, many theists including myself, would disagree with this observation, because God would be viewed as infinite, and eternal, in contrast to matter, time and space which would be viewed as finite, and created. Peter Kreeft notes that the first cause argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause, only that everything in motion, everything dependent needs a cause.[10] God would be viewed as infinite, eternal and immutable (unchangeable), and would not need a cause.
Who created God?
An objection arises, who created God? Gijsbers states that even if the first cause argument is valid, then God would have to have a cause as well.[9] However, many theists including myself, would disagree with this observation, because God would be viewed as infinite, and eternal, in contrast to matter, time and space which would be viewed as finite, and created. Peter Kreeft notes that the first cause argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause, only that everything in motion, everything dependent needs a cause.[10] God would be viewed as infinite, eternal and immutable (unchangeable), and would not need a cause.
I would add that everything finite, needs a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
Infinite Regression
An actual infinite cannot exist because of the problem of infinite regression. I would deduce as others have, that if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.
Simon Blackburn points out a potential problem with deducing that each event requires a preceding event would mean that the first cause also requires a preceding event. Blackburn correctly states that the preceding natural events must be distinguished from an initial supernatural event to avoid this problem, the supernatural event would need no cause.[11]
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
Infinite Regression
An actual infinite cannot exist because of the problem of infinite regression. I would deduce as others have, that if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.
Simon Blackburn points out a potential problem with deducing that each event requires a preceding event would mean that the first cause also requires a preceding event. Blackburn correctly states that the preceding natural events must be distinguished from an initial supernatural event to avoid this problem, the supernatural event would need no cause.[11]
With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition.[12] This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[13] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23.The Big Bang
Craig writes that scientifically the big bang theory seems to require that the universe began and was created out of nothing.[14] By nothing, it is meant that it was not created by pre-existent matter.
Time and space would also be finite creations.
The following question is posed to a NASA Astrophysicist
The Question
(Submitted November 08, 1997)
What is the big bang theory? What do you believe?
The Answer
'The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.
This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.
The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.
However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.
Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...
However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the “why'' questions than anyone else.
On the other hand, it is safe to say that as scientists we can agree on an approach to learning about nature and the universe. This approach is one of using observations to test theories. And when a theory has been tested as much as the big bang theory, with each test reconfirming its validity, then we believe that it likely true -- at least more true than those theories which have failed the observational tests.
Good luck on your quest for the truth.
Jonathan Keohane for Ask an Astrophysicist[15]
There are many in the scientific community who believe in the big bang theory, so it is at least a reasonable theory for the theist to consider.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.'
The Christian God?
If the first cause argument is valid, does it prove the Christian God? No. I think that God needs to reveal himself supernaturally to be understood as a personal being. However, does the idea of a first cause seem to agree with the concept of God in the Bible? Yes, in general terms. God is shown in Genesis to have been a living reality before creation, and therefore can be deduced as existing before matter, time or space or anything that human beings can empirically measure. Perhaps angelic beings existed before the creation of matter, but the deduction is that at one point God created time and the angels as well.
A critic could argue that in limitless eternity, there could be many Gods and there is no reason to believe in one God. However, I would think that the infinite/limitless nature of the first cause would mean that there would only be one God, since two or more limitless Gods would be a logical contradiction. I would state that a hypothetical infinite array of Gods that could have existed before time in an eternal state would far more likely actually be one infinite God of one substance. I have also read critics that suggest that God within the first cause argument could have been some type of creature and not the benevolent God of Christianity.
Since physical matter, time and space has a beginning and is not eternal, I have great difficulty thinking it a reasonable possibility that the first cause was a unicorn, or horrific monster, rather than a non-physical being. As far as God’s benevolence, I think the primary evidence for his nature and character would come via revelation. In Scripture God is called the Alpha and Omega (Isaiah and Revelation), the beginning and the end, and this concept seems to be in line with that of first cause. The idea being God was present from the beginning of creation, and will be present forever.[16] However, as God is uncaused and necessary and of necessity; God as first cause, is by default the good. If anything is good, it would be that which is necessary, infinite and external.
[1] In Arabic tradition, speech or discourse used to discuss speculative theology.[2] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[3] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[4] Craig (1991)(2006: 12-13).[5] The fundamental unit of electromagnetic energy.[6] Gijsbers, Victor (2006: 1).[7] Sklar (1996: 615).[8] Sklar (1996: 615).[9] Gijsbers, Victor (2006: 1).[10] Kreeft, Peter (2006: 4).[11] Blackburn (1996: 140).[12] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 10).[15] Keohane (1997: 1).[16] Browning, W.R.F. (1997: 12).
---
Vicious Regress
(If there is an infinite distance between Vancouver and Calgary, one will never arrive in Calgary)
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324) A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).
Bradley mentions that a vicious regress is not illogical, and that it is not vicious regress to state that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
pp. 1-18.
GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’
GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’
http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm
pp. 1-2.
KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’
pp. 1-2.
KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
p. 1.
KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.
p. 1.
KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html
pp. 1-5.
SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
pp. 1-5.
SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Nice summary of first cause and cosmology.
ReplyDeleteAt a recent BBQ/Bible Study I attended, a little girl asked the question "Who created God?" Although this essay would be a little over her head, it is refreshing to hear kids ask the most profound questions, that most adults don't bother to think about.
On a related topic, the thing about a finite universe that perplexes my brain is: what is the nature of the "edge" of the universe? If it is finite, it must have limits. Maybe the edge of the universe has properties similar to black holes, so the closer you get to the edge, the more likely you are to be pulled into its gravitational field. Or maybe it's made of some gooey, marshmallowy material. What happens if you move really fast through space and hit the edge? Do you bounce back? Hmmmm...
Thanks for the excellent comment.
ReplyDeleteSome archived posts have had comments deleted.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDelete