The origin of life, the universe and our species is one of the big questions. Â In general, origin is hard to prove and difficult to comprehend. Â To comprehend a point in the past where matter, and indeed time itself, didn’t exist is taxing on a number of levels, and inevitably leads us to question the fragility of our own existence.
Certainly origin is one of the aspects which underlines the different approaches theists and atheists take on certain issues. Specifically, atheists will question and seek answers whilst theists are happy to accept the first answer given.
Just to be clear, the majority of religions (I can personally speak of Islam and Christianity) believe that their has always existed. To back this up, they raise the issue of cause. Cause triggers an effect, if there is an effect, there must be a cause. The effect is the universe, so what’s the cause?
Back to the Beginning
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It seemed appropriate to start with Genesis as it gives us a launching pad and something to consider. “In the beginning” implies that this is the start, and as the topic of discussion is origin, we can presume that this is the start of the start, the beginning of the origin if you will. This opening statement sits well with scientific theory, in that before matter, time did not exist.
The start of everything was the creation of matter (assuming that time cannot exist unless there is matter on which we can observe its impact). Without wanting to dive into a discussion of semantics, the quote opens up the possibility that God could not have existed without his creation. The statement is not “God existed and then created…”, it is “In the beginning” – which suggests, as I stated earlier, before anything else. So while the argument is that God has always existed, it only really applies within the confines of science’s definition of time.
The result of this is that the bible does not necessarily claim that God existed before his creations. Applying logic to conclude that he must have existed in order to create something does not apply here. We could speculate that God only came into existence through the act of creating. We would, of course, dispute that “God created” due to a lack of evidence.
Returning to the issue of cause, God has been referred to as the cause without a cause, which seems like an odd definition. This is obviously an attempt to avoid calling God an “effect”.
When it comes to cause, theists rely on two principals to solidify their argument. Firstly, that every effect has a cause. Secondly, that if we follow the cause and effect chain back to the beginning, we must reach a point where the condition falls down (i.e. either we reach a point where there is no cause and hence no effect, or we reach an effect without a cause – both breaking the fundamental cause and effect rule). They say that God is the end of the chain, the original cause. And just to be clear here, we’re talking about an infinite regress.
As an argument in support of the existence of a creator God, infinite regression is simply a dressed up version of the “God of the Gaps” argument. Theists find a gap in science’s knowledge, latch on to it, and propose God as the answer. As scientific knowledge has improved, it has closed off many of the “God of the Gaps” arguments while opening up a number of new ones. It’s what happens in the course of scientific advancement, whilst some problems are solved, others are caused.
The obvious issue any logical person would have with claiming infinite regress, or effect without cause, as an argument for the existence of a God is that it is ultimately self-defeating. You cannot argue that God must not exist because ever effect must have a cause, whilst also arguing that God is the cause without a cause. It’s not only hypocritical but logically indefensible. Either you accept that the universe is bound by the rules, or not. You cannot pick and choose the rules you accept, and those you apply in your arguments. This isn’t about creating a level playing field when it comes to these discussions, it’s about ensuring there is a sound foundation on which to base our ideas. Selective acceptance of rules is not a sound foundation, quite the opposite. As Bertrand Russell so elegantly put it…
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Even discounting the flawed logic, the infinite regression argument still fails the same tests that the “God of the Gaps” argument fails. For example, the absence of a scientific explanation for a phenomena, any phenomena, does not necessitate, nor prove, the existence of a God.
In steps Science…
Earlier I touched on the idea that science causes itself problems. In it’s pursuit of advancement and knowledge it breaks boundaries and unveils new worlds. We never had to consider sub-atomic physics until we knew the sub-atomic world existed, for example. The key difference between the scientific approach and the theistic approach can be clearly evidenced in any “God of the Gaps” argument. While theists are happy to suggest that any gap in knowledge is the work of a God, science works to close the gaps in our knowledge.
Unlike the theist camp, followers of science do not claim to have an answer to the origin question. There are numerous Theories of Everything, including String Theory, but they are unproven (and untested) theories. My assertions above are logically questioning the Christian take on creation, not scientifically disproving it – the distinction is important and I do not want to mislead anyone by claiming otherwise.
Scientifically, we are heading towards a situation where we can examine the conditions that resulted in the universe, it’s all a matter of being able to closely reproduce the environment the big bang occurred in. This requires an almost incomprehensible amount of power. Nevertheless, onward we go.
I’ll openly admit that origin, or creation, is an area I struggle with. On the one hand, I find theist’s versions of events irreconcilable with the real world, yet I also do not know enough about the subject to be confident in science’s explanation. This is an area vastly more complicated than evolutionary science, and demonstrating it isn’t as simple as demonstrating speciation or intermediate fossils.
As a response to the infinite regression argument, I wanted to offer an alternative, logically defensible, theory. As I touched on previously, I can logically discount the infinite regression argument, in much the same way I can logically discount the God of the Gaps argument, but it would be hypocritical of me to not offer an alternative.
The cause and effect argument for the existence of a God is based on two assumptions. Note that I’m using a closed definition of the word “universe” to illustrate my theory. Perhaps a holistic system would be a better description, but that’s too much typing.
- We know and understand all the physical rules by which our world is bound.
- The creation of this universe was bound by those same rules.
To address the first assumption, our knowledge of the universe is evolving all the time. To assume that we know all the rules by which our universe is constrained is arrogant and incorrect. Simply looking at the advancements in areas such as String Theory should give some indication that we are still learning. We are also unable to recreate certain environments and conditions, therefore preventing us from fully exploring posited hypotheses. In particular, the massive amounts of energy required to recreate the conditions around the time of the Big Bang means it is not currently possible to fully understand the events that took place.
The second assumption is also open to debate. Whilst we can, based on current knowledge, state that effect must have a cause, we can only state that as being true for our own universe. We do not know what exists, if anything, outside our universe, and whether it is bound by the same rules. To ground this in reality, we can look at a known example – the sub-atomic world. Whilst is is undoubtedly part of our universe, it is not universally bound by the same rules. We have witnessed behaviour in the sub-atomic world universe that contradicts our understanding of the world and the prior understood laws of physics. Logically extending this to encompass the possibility that our universe is in turn part of a larger universe, doesn’t seem a stretch too far.
Whilst considering this possibility, we might also care to wonder whether the universe which contains our universe is subject to the same physical laws and conditions as our own. To assume that it is would be a leap of faith. There is nothing upon which to base a logical assumption that because energy and matter cannot be created in isolation in our universe, it cannot in any universe.
You might also consider that if, in the “Extra Universe” (perhaps “Super Universe” would be more fitting) matter under certain conditions can produce energy, the origin of our universe was the result of such a reaction.
Conclusion
I don’t want to suggest that the theory above is the answer to the question of origin. Rather I hope it acts as a starting point for a discussion. The theory itself can be dismantled and discredited, which I welcome, so long as its purpose remains. The one thing I hope it has suggested is that it cannot be scientifically disproved, and that alone is evidence enough that our knowledge of the universe, and the environment our universe inhabits, is still limited.
What I do want to reiterate is that the logical argument for the existence of a God is always based on shaky foundations. Live by logic, die by logic.
I am honoured to make the first comment in the new-look site… thanks for all your hard work!
ORIGINS. It’s great that you’re taking this question seriously at last and even accepting it as a big question (and not a sneaky move – though you do still make that assertion anyway in your post!). That’s progress! I must therefore reject your opinion that “atheists will question and seek answers whilst theists are happy to accept the first answer given.” Surely you are aware that the debate on this very issue has a long history, long before atheists came on the scene.
To take your real arguments:
1. Causality and God. It is false to say that “the majority of religions … believe that their [deity(ies)] has/have always existed.” Other than the 3 great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) most do not. Still, you are correct in those cases.
We do not “raise the issue” of cause to “back this up”, however. The question naturally arises to any thinking person. How did all this get here? As you admitted at the beginning, it is a “big” question. It is also the way science always tackles questions by its very method. This is because it accepts the elementary philosophical principle that every effect must have a cause. This is a very basic principle, and one which it is impossible to live without. If some effects had no cause, they would be inexplicable, and science itself would be powerless to explain them. (More on this later).
2. The Genesis account. “In the beginning…”. I agree with everything you say until you suggest that “the quote opens up the possibility that God could not have existed without his creation.” This is because the statement certainly is: “God existed and then created…” although the “then” is the wrong word, because it is temporal. Time is a measure of change. This is one of those lovely few definitions that seem to be able to be arrived at both scientifically and philsophically. I believe it was first proposed by St. Augustine, who came to it philosophically. So you are right that “In the beginning…” implies a “before anything else changed“.
Strictly speaking you are right that God did not exist “before” creation since he is unchanging. However, this is misleading. I am not sure why you will prohibit logic – a very odd thing indeed for one who loves science, since that is another philosophical tool that science requires – but it is clear that an effect can not be its own cause. That’s like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces. Even your explanation shows this up: “We could speculate that God only came into existence through the act of creating.” This would imply that he created himself. Surely it is obvious that you have to exist to create?
[Your side point is also revealing: you don’t in fact dispute that God created “due to a lack of evidence”, but rather, seeing the evidence (namely creation) you refuse to accept even the hypothesis of a god.]
3. God as uncaused cause. This is not an “attempt” to avoid anything. Quite the contrary, it acknowledges the simple logic that the chain of causality can’t have no starting point (or it would never have begun) as you explain well. Hence there is a starting point. This we name “God.” It is a philosophical (rather than theological) definition, which as we have agreed before, tells us little about the nature of God other than his existence.
4. God of the Gaps. I have often been tempted to pull you up for this fast footwork. It can not just be pulled out of the hat whenever you are losing an argument. Just because some things have been explained scientifically that believers had generally interpreted to be directly caused by God, you can’t then draw the conclusion that everything will be. As I have argued before, science has its own method and its own assumptions, and is therefore limited to that. Some things (philosophy, art, theology etc…) remain outside.
In any case you put the cart before the horse. It’s not that theists hunt around looking for a gap in scientific knowledge to exploit. These theistic arguments are prior. What is happening is that when you come across one that science has no anwer for you simply incant your magical slogan that science “has not yet” answered it, in the hopes that it will soon… So which one of us is the believer? The one who uses logic, or the one who believes in some future answer?
5. “It’s not only hypocritical but logically indefensible”. Yes, but on the other side than you think!
Have you heard of “reductio ad absurdum” argumentation? You assume A, and then, using just logic, come to conclusion “not A”. But since “A” and “not A” can not both be true (in the same way), you must conclude “not A”.
So, let us assume then that “every cause has itself been caused.” (ie every cause is also an effect, requiring some other cause ie infinite regression). Call this statement “A”. If this was true, you realise that in fact, nothing would ever happen, because for anything to happen, some prior cause must have caused it … in other words, there is no ‘start’. This is impossible, because clearly things do happen. Hence there must be a ‘start’, or a ‘first cause’ which was not itself caused.” This contradicts thesis “A”. Thus we can conclude that in fact “not every cause has itself been caused”, ie the first one(s). It can also be called a “necessary cause” since it exists of necessity and is the ultimate cause of everything else (pretty amazing!)
You bring up Bertrand Russell, who was a philosopher… if only the new atheists had some thinkers of this callibre! He is certainly right that you could posit “the universe” as the original cause, but it would be hard to justify its necessity – that is because it is material and non intelligent (Heidegger’s work is of interest here). One more step is required. Still, I think we are getting somewhere with a decent rebuttal at this point!
6. ta-ta-ta-ra-ta-taaaaa!!! In steps Science….
“While theists are happy to suggest that any gap in knowledge is the work of a God, science works to close the gaps in our knowledge.” Rubbish! Intelligent theists are happy to accept the valid results of science. They are also happy to accept that science has its limits and there are other ways to come to knowledge about reality, and indeed, other types of reality impervious to the natural sciences (philosophy, art….. etc…). I refer you back to my number 4, since this objection is just a rehash.
7. It’s not either or. Why do you feel you have to choose between the “theist’s versions of events” and science, unless you can show that they really are “irreconcilable with the real world,” in which case you actually do “know enough about the subject to be confident in science’s explanation.”
8. The alternative argument. I think your premises for attacking the cause and effect argument are misplaced. The argument is not scientific, but philosophical. It does not make any assumptions about either “all the physical rules by which our world is bound” or whether “The creation of this universe was bound by those same rules.” This all sounds like a “science of the gaps” argument to me… where logic is quite clear, you are suggesting scientific theories to make it muddy again.
For example, you state it is merely an assumption that just “because energy and matter cannot be created in isolation in our universe, it cannot in any universe.”
First: This is a rather desperate gamble: God most certainly does not exist, but another universe with totally different rules (where matter and energy can just pop into existence) probably could.
Second: It is good to see a recognition, however, of “rules” in this universe. Where did they come from? Could there possibly be a ruler somewhere?
Third: Logic must apply to all ‘universes’ for us to even be able to think about it since the principle of non-contradiction is fundamental to our thought. To deny self-evident things like cause and effect even in another universe is to admit mystery: something totally unknowable by us. Perhaps that’s a good start, I don’t know….
9. Conclusion
In fact: logical argument for the existence of a God is quite strong. (Though, of course, if you make a decision not to accept it there is no way you will).
Live by logic, die by logic. AMEN.
In order…
1. Obviously I am not familiar with every religion, perhaps that should be the “majority of religions I have experience of”. The “they raise” was actually specifically referring to conversations I’ve had with various theists, including yourself, who have brought up this issue.
2. “it is clear that an effect can not be its own cause. That’s like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces.” So an effect cannot be its own cause, but it can be causeless, but only in the case of God, right? Just so we’re clear, it’s ok to suggest that God is causeless (breaking the known cause and effect rules) but not ok to suggest that, theoretically, God was his own cause? I’m intrigued as to why you find one hypothesis so agreeable but not the other. Despite there being no evidence for either. “Surely it is obvious that you have to exist to create?” Why? Again we’ve already gone way beyond the known “rules”, so why continue to be bound by others where there’s no logical reason?
3. I’d rephrase that as “its existence”. We agree that there has to be a starting point (at least of our universe), and if you want to call that starting point “God”, I won’t argue that with you. What I would certainly question is whether the “God” we agree exists (i.e. the starting point of the universe) is the same God the theistic religions speak of. After all, I’m referring to a point before time, where religion is referring to a bearded invisible guy in the sky. We can apply any labels we wish.
4. I know you’ll question this (I’d be disappointed if you didn’t), but my “faith” in science is based on prior knowledge and experience. It isn’t blind faith. We are also all aware of ongoing and planned experiments in the specific area of origin and specifically the circumstances immediately after the big bang. Am I confident that these experiments will provide answers? Yes, and I can 100% guarantee that they will, even if the answers are only that existing hypothesis are incorrect (down selection of theories is necessary and valuable), therefore, any result is an answer. Contrast this with the approaches of the major religions. They aren’t actively trying to find any answers that contradict their extant teachings. They may try and confirm their teachings through their version of science, but without the peer review system science is built upon, it is of little merit. The Discovery Institute are proponents and practitioners of this particular breed of faux science.
5. I’ve not heard of ““reductio ad absurdumâ€, but I’ll read in to it. i still don’t see the need for the “first cause” to be conscious for the same reason I don’t see the need for the first cause to be intentional. Perhaps it’s because I don’t feel the need to be “part of a plan”, or perhaps it’s because we see effects that have unintentional, non-conscious causes every day. I don’t see why the “first cause” should be any different.
6. “Intelligent theists are happy to accept the valid results of science.” Fine, and I accept that, but we still have young earth creationists (to pick but one example). To be honest, I’m not sure which concerns me more, theists who try and bend their well practised beliefs because of a scientific advancement or those who don’t. One shows a lack of commitment, one shows a lack of logic.
7. Again, refer to young earth creationists. While you, and many others, can accept scientific explanations, there are still those who cannot. I’m yet to see any convincing research which indicates which camp is in the majority, so the point stands and is still required.
8. I was hoping you would give more thought to my alternative theory. It’s simply an exercise I undertook in order break out of my own boundaries and misconceptions. I fail to see how logic points to the existence of a God over, say, our universe simply being part of a larger universe. I only introduced the scientific element as a way of demonstrating that science has not ruled this out, even if you have. To me, until evidence becomes available, both theories are equally valid. So my “desperate gamble” is simply subjecting my theories to the same rigour as you do to yours? So long as we’re calling a spade a spade.
I see no need for, not evidence of, a “ruler”. I would say that the available evidence suggests there isn’t one.
I don’t see our inability to comprehend something as a valid argument for its non-existence. If I did, I’d peg it as being a pretty strong argument against the existence of a creator God (how can we comprehend a God as the “first cause” but not a universe without a cause?). I don’t have a problem with unknowns. I do have a problem with people who think all the unknowns can be addressed by a 2000 year old book.
Origins certainly is a big topic discussion for either the Christian or the atheist.
Firstly, let me introduce myself so as not to be in any way ambiguous about where I am coming from. I am a Christian (with a fitting name I suppose) who is moderately well read but hopelessly uneducated. I do not hold any special degrees, diplomas or accreditations. Yes, I grew up in a somewhat “religious” home, it wasn’t however until years later that I accepted Christian beliefs as truth.
In general there are a few points that I don’t quite understand about modern (or should that be post-modern?) day atheists.
1. Why would anyone define themselves by something they do not believe in? I personally wouldn’t devote much energy, especially in the form of a website, to convincing people that Big Foot doesn’t exist. If someone wants to believe that there is a Big Foot – so be it. It doesn’t really effect me or the fact that I do not believe in Big Foot. I suppose there is the argument to this that some Christian beliefs do effect those outside of Christianity; gay marriage, abortion, etc. But by and large, if you live in the U.S. you are free to believe what you want with very little outside influence. There is also the point that there some (many?) who do not identify themselves as Christians but would still support those same beliefs for quite different reasons.
2. Why the “us vs. them” mentality? This goes for both sides. Science, in it’s truest form is simply the study of things in an attempt to “know” – scientia latin for “knowledge”… simple right? Science was certainly one of my favorite studies in school – just because I didn’t agree with the specific theory of evolution that Darwin suggests, certainly didn’t mean I threw out all science. I don’t really care for the “science vs. religion” argument – it’s too broad. There are several big points where the two entities disagree, but I don’t believe all Christians disagree with all of science and vise versa.
Sorry to stray off of the above topic, there were just a few points I thought I should bring up before going any further. To discuss your original post –
I don’t have the time (and admittedly, the background) to go point-for-point, but let me try to jump in regarding your initial argument about causality. If theists argue that God is the creator, the thing before all other things, I certainly don’t see that as being harder to swallow than either 1. Created from nothing or 2. A super/alternate universe. Does the atheist not have to have a wild faith for any of these other theories?
I don’t buy the “god-of-the-gaps” argument either. God is there whether there are gaps or not. Gaps close, whether slowly by time and understanding, or by giant “A-ha” moments, we as a human race understand more and more things in this world every day. This is not to say that these things explain away God, but rather bring us closer to Him. If it wasn’t for a science that explained thunder and lightning, I might today believe that thunder is God’s footsteps, and lightning a sharp hand. Thank God I now know better! If the Christian faith was really as shallow as a god-of-the-gaps argument, it would be a miracle we are still around. No, I don’t believe that Christians blindly accept the first answer.
One last thing, sorry this again might be off topic. In another post you explain that “nothing” would convince you of God existing. Fair and well, but what if science slowly led you there? What if the greater scientific community took the logical (not shaky, but firm) conclusion to the end and realized “a-ha” there must be a creator – or better yet, found indisputable proof? Would you walk away from them as well?
From what I have read, I want to thank you for being quite civil in your arguments. I don’t usually add my two cents to these discussions because too often you get those who only can add “stoopid f-ing christians” or the like. 1. Not an argument and 2. Grow up. It is refreshing to see that there can be an actual conversation with two or more distinctly different views and beliefs.
Take care,