Causes and Physical Laws: Why God Can't Be Used as a Cause of the Universe (Book Notes: Arguing for Atheism)
In Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Robin Le Poidevin writes:
A world in which there can be causal explanation is not a chaotic world; it is a world tightly constrained by the laws of nature. Causal generalisations are simply reflections of these laws: that is, they are true because of the existence of fundamental laws. Causal explanation, then, takes place against a background of laws.
But when we come to the explanation of the universe as a whole, part of what we are required to explain is the existence of the laws themselves. We cannot therefore help ourselves to any laws in order to explain the existence of the universe. Consequently, the explanation of the universe cannot take place against a background of laws. But, since causal explanation requires such a background, there can be no causal explanation of the universe. [emphasis added]
The importance of this insight would be hard to underestimate: causality, as a concept, is based entirely upon the context of our universe. It would therefore be wrong to apply the concept to the origin of the universe. What this would mean, then, is that the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” as we use and understand the term. If that’s the case, then these argument for the existence of gods are simply nonsensical.
In The Atheists Debater's Handbook, B.C. Johnson makes a similar point:
The theist innocently demands a cause for orderliness, forgetting, of course, that “cause” presupposes “orderliness.” Without the laws of causality, no causes would be operative. The laws of causality must therefore exist before any cause can operate. Therefore the laws of causality cannot be the result of any cause. These are laws which cannot be caused even by God.
Thus, not only is “god” not an viable explanation for the existence of the universe, but it’s not even logically possible for “god” to “cause” the existence of orderliness and causality. If there is any sort of connection between “god” and “the universe,” it’s not a causal relationship. Perhaps theists will have to come up with some new sort of mystery that “explains” the universe.
Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.
Comments
But doesn’t the Big Bang theory give scientific evidence pointing at a beginning of the universe? The argument for “cause” would be more valid if no such evidence existed, on the basis of course that cause and casual explanations fall upon the factual existence of the universe. But if the universe itself hints at a beginning, then the casual explanation CAN fall upon the universe. For example, if you find a house in the middle of nowhere, and it is a perfectly built house, without any kind of mortar or nothing that gives indication that it was built, then you cannot really say where it came from and thus the only observations accepted are the ones that come after, if a window breaks with a ball you throw, for example. But if you find a house with a cement bag nearby, or some chopped wood and an axe, you come to the logical conclusion someone built it, and thus the “cause” can apply to the house because itself has given hints at a cause. At least, in my opinion, that argument falls flat on itself due to the found evidence, thought it is convincing if there was a lack of such.
A “beginning” requires a “time before” and a “time after,” but there was no “time before” because time originates with the Big Bang.
Two things-
1. I don’t understand how a beginning must necessarily have a “time before.” And the argument that the beginning of the universe isn’t really the beginning because there was no time before does not make sense. In addition, claiming that time originates with the Big Bang is a circular argument because you have to assume that ‘originating’ implies that it at some point begins. If time did not exist before the Big Bang, at some point it had to begin to exist.
2. Also, if the universe does not require a beginning, as you say, why then must God require a beginning? Why can’t it be that God is infinite and the universe is a product of an infinite God? You can’t argue the idea of an infinite universe without contradicting your argument against an infinite God.
Then can you describe a “beginning” without implying the existence of a “time before”?
How so? A line the extends infinitely to the right can have an point of origin right in front of me — no “line to the left.”
You forget that people are trying to prove the existence of a god on the basis of the universe requiring a beginning. Saying that this god requires a beginning is only made in the context of those arguments.
Context matters.
the context of the argument here seems to be proving Gods existences. Now what happens if we simply try to disprove God with the understanding that he is?
Well the big bang certaintly does not necessary dictate the orgin of time. it simply comes down to a vastly complex question to which there is no answer that we as human beings are going to be able to comphrend.
How the hell does matter or for that matter existence come to be?
2. Science is by far not the oppontent of the thesist but its ally for its with science that our understanding of the world comes. the big bang theory relies largely on the belief and understanding that the universe is expanding.
But of note in that theory the assumption is that all matter comes from one spot or in other words existence comes from One
thats pretty much a thesist stance too.
Is there any reason to start out by assuming that the theists’ hypothesis is correct?
Since the Big Bang is the origin of our universe then, yes, it is the origin of our time as well.
Funny, then, how science has undermined pretty much every traditional theistic belief and dogma.
Funny, then, how science has undermined pretty much every traditional theistic belief and dogma.
I don’t believe it has. Theism is understanding why we are here and our purpose in this life. Science at no point tries to offer a solution to this question just as theism at no point tries to do what science’s purpose is, to explain how we got here. If you believe in God, then you would believe that science is a gift given to us buy our creator in order to explain the world around us, just as logic and reason were gifts. There is a certain humility that comes with that which some atheists do not subscribe to, we are what we are made to be (this is true whether you believe in God or not).
No, it’s not. Theism is belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort; no more, no less. What you describe are common features of various belief systems, some theistic and some not. To assert what you just did implies that unless a person is a theist, they don’t delve into such matters.
Sure it does. Science reveals, for example, that we are here because of evolution and that a basic purpose is reproduction.
It’s arrogant and even bigoted to suggest that theists are inherently more humble than atheists. In fact, it’s arguably the antithesis of humility, thus undermining the original position.
Austin wrote:
“Funny, then, how science has undermined pretty much every traditional theistic belief and dogma.”
Then Christian G wrote:
“I don’t believe it has.”
Really Christian? You are unaware that in most theistic belief systems, the world is assumed to be flat? The sun is assumed to orbit the earth? That gods are assumed to live in the clouds, and demons under the ground? That demons are blamed for disease and illness? That magic is the explanation for everything the believer cannot explain?
Your lack of knowledge about human history is quite complete if you don’t know these things. Instead of spouting off opinions on things you know nothing about, I would recommend either (a) not spouting off opinions on things you know nothing about, which makes you look like a liar or a moron, or (b) actually finding out about things BEFORE you make conclusions about them. If you were to start doing this (it’s called seeking knowledge), you will find that the history of science is largely a history of the resistance to it by religion.
Forming conclusions about things BEFORE you study them is one of the most harmful things a person can do, both to himself, and to the world around him.
Concerning the universe “perhaps not having a cause.” You and I go about our lives assuming the Law of Causality. You cannot live without this assumption. It is self-evident sir. So, to think that the universe is uncaused does not purport with reality.
Perhaps is not an argument. You know you can’t deny the Law of Casualty. There must be a cause and since the universe could not cause itself (an absurdity), we humans well some humans postulate a being that has life and the power of being as creator.
This “Law of Causality” presupposes the presence of space, time, and natural laws. All of those in turn require the existence of the universe. Ergo, this does not apply in a context where there is no universe - like the origin of the universe itself.
Moreover, causality does not apply even within our universe when we are talking about the quantum level.
Already done.
Oh? Prove it.
It is? Prove it.
Actually, some humans postulate magic because they have nothing else they’ve thought of.
Austin wrote: “Moreover, causality does not apply even within our universe when we are talking about the quantum level.”
I’m not a physicist but I think this is a hotly debated topic as it relates to quantum entanglement and the tiny world of quantum mechanics. Perhaps it’s too early to pass such judgment about causality.
No, not really. The absence of causality at a certain level has been accepted for a while now.
Austin wrote: “No, not really. The absence of causality at a certain level has been accepted for a while now.”
There seems to be a lot of physicists that haven’t gotten your message. I’ll not bore you with links as they’re easy to find on the web.