First Cause Argument:
Something caused the Universe to exist and this cause must be God.
Arguments Against:
- What caused God? How far back in the causality chain do you go?
- Assuming from our limited experience that all things have a cause. This is a logic fallacy of extrapolating from limited experience. Thus causality for the universe may or may not be true.
- Again we are making another assumption that the Universe had a beginning. The Universe just may “be”. It is existence. Causality requires a time line. It can be argued that time exists in the Universe, but that the Universe exists outside of time.
- If we were to assume a First Cause, there is no requirement that this be God. And even if you assume God, there is no requirement that God continues to interact with the Universe he created.
- Fallacy of Equivocation
- Assuming a first cause, and assuming this first cause was “god”, then my god must exists
- The first god is a placeholder for the concept of first causality, this first cause is really unknown.
- The second god (pick a religion) is a different construct than the first. It is a logical fallacy to assume they are the same.
- From The WatchTower.org – The Official Jehovah Witness site – The Watchmaker argument
- Argument boils down to this: If even simple things like tables, watches, etc need a maker then surely something as complicated as the Universe has one.
Arguments For:
- It is God not the Universe that exists outside of time, and thus allows for a causality of the Universe
- Modern science points to a beginning, the Big Bang Theory. Thus the universe is not infinite and something beyond it that caused it.
- “Neither is it reasonable to believe that a thing could be in effect for no reason. Therefore, in order to explain the existence of effects, there must be a first cause of all effects. The idea that things happen for no reason, is not a reasonable thing to believe in. It is induction, and induction is valid.”
References:
- Wikipedia
- Cosmological Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
- Nathaniel Branden:
- Is there any need for a first cause? http://www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
- Existence-of-God.com
- Atheism.about.com
I feel a thinking man (woman) can only be an Agnostic…. or an Agnostic tending towards Atheism.
I’d hardly say that anyone who thinks about the issue must be agnostic or atheistic. The first cause argument is ultimately a purely mental exercise and thus unprovable. This means that the arguments which advance one particular viewpoint to a point of apparent strength may or may not have been discovered at any particular point in time. So, some thoughts:
Arguments against #1: This is really begging the question. If we are looking for a first cause then by definition nothing else caused it.
AA #2: Everything is relative but all of human history and scientific thought hardly seems like limited experience to extrapolate from. If we are claiming to operate from a scientific or rational or logical perspective in arguing against a supernatural power then believing in causes is strongly supported. While experience and scientific knowledge does not support a simply linear chain of direct causation (i.e. the universe is a complex and vast group of interactions that produces multiple factors of causation for each “event”) it does support the general idea of causation.
AA #3: As i understand modern physics and cosmology that is widely accepted( einsteinian, heisenberg, hawkings earlier work) this is the strongest argument against but with some problems. the idea of causality implies a one way progression of time. 20th century physics “proves” that this is not the truth, that time runs both directions, that time does not exist outside of the universe, that it is created as the universe is created and that the very concept of time does not exist without the the first three physical dimensions that create it. However, this doesn’t support that the universe exists outside of time. Time is an integral part of the structure of the universe and is inherent in its very physical existence. Without this assumption questions of causality are pointless. Yet if you buy that time can run both directions how can we believe in causality? If we chose to follow this line of thought then there is no first creation (from which end do you look?) therefore no first cause, therefore no need for god. It does raise troubling questions about free will though.
AA#4: Seems to be begging the question as well. You can call the first cause whatever you like but something, call it Msglr, that is capable of creating out of pure thought or intent the universe that we know is represented by the idea embodied in the letters God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman. So call it first cause or msglr or whatever it is the same thing. There is absolutely no guarantee that god if you believe in it interacts with the universe. There is actually almost no evidence that suggests that it does. See the Deist’s here.
AA#5: All true. Not so much arguments against god as arguments against arguments for god.
Arguments for god #1: This actually would argue against god being the first cause. See #3. Causality demands existence in time. If god exists out of time it cannot interact with time. God could exist interwoven or across time but this raises difficult questions about causality and free will again per #3.
AF#2: The first sentence does not imply the second. The first half of the second sentence does not imply the second half. The Big bang theory is only one, albeit the most widely accepted, of several currently with some degree of credibility. And even it is far from accepted as “fact.” Modern science still acknowledges a great deal of uncertainty in relation to how the universe “began”, is likely to “end” and whether this is a one time shot or simply the largest cycle of everything.
AF#3: Very similar to #5 above. Does not really advance any compelling argument for god.
My take: Believe what you want to believe. It really doesn’t matter except in so much as it helps you make sense of things. Just keep in mind that if you believe in something that is unprovable and take it on “faith”, the proper place for those beliefs is inside of yourself and the only person they should concern is yourself. I know Dad has a beef because he believes that religion is divisive and has caused more suffering in the world than good. I personally think this has more to do with the accretion of power within a constructed organization. Just as governments become corrupt and bureaucracies tend over time to accumulate power and draw those who seek power so do religions. That is a function of collectivization of will and authority and physical wealth. Has nothing to do with the theory or idea behind it. Our current government being a case in point.
I’m probably a weak Deist myself. Most theistic religions to me seem to reflect the cultures that they grew out of with some spattering of universal truth. I’m most attracted to eastern philosophies because they are very conscious of the tenuous nature of “reality” and “truth.” I dislike most religions (or peoples) grasping at hard “facts” and desire for rigid codifications and rules. It is far more difficult to live with constant uncertainty and I will admit to some difficulty with decision-making and self-knowledge that i suspect is rooted in this outlook. But if that is the price for an open view of life and the desire to see with minimal self deception then I guess I will just have to pay. And thank my wife for her tolerance of my occasional paralyzation and constant waffling.