Argument from first cause
(→Problems with the argument) |
(not a stub) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
[[Category:Culture wars]] | [[Category:Culture wars]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 00:59, 21 June 2013
| One of many articles on |
| The main players |
| Critics |
| Supporting actors |
The First Cause Argument, also referred to as the Cosmological Argument, essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted hypothesis to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods or other supernatural agency) must exist to have caused everything else.
Contents |
Argument structure
The argument from a first cause requires the following observations to be made:
- Everything that comes into being must have a cause.
- This is determined from both observation and the logic behind causality. Everything that is observed in the universe has some form of cause behind it and this forms the basis of conservation of momentum and energy. Within causality there is a unifying logic between an effect (something caused) and an affect (cause). An affectless effect and an effectless affect are logically nonsensical propositions.
- An infinite regress of causes is impossible.
- Disallowing an infinite regress of causes is, technically speaking, an assertion and just a requirement for the argument to work. However, a form of pleading can be made that while an infinite regress of temporal causes may be allowable, an infinite regress of non-temporal causes may not. In other words, a sequence of events in time may be able to go infinitely forward through the future and back through the past but time itself must have some other form of cause.
- We must therefore arise at a first cause.
- Following from disallowing an infinite regress of causes, there must be a point where a First Cause appears. This is the concept first developed by Aristotle and expanded upon by Aquinas as the "unmoved mover" or the "uncaused causer".
- This first cause is God.
- Having established the existence of the first cause, it is asserted that this cause is none other than the God of choice of the person making the argument.
Further assumptions
Self causing
Related to the infinite regress of causes is the idea that something may cause itself to come into being. Aquinas argues that this is impossible on account of it never having been empirically observed but also because of the impossibility and absurdity of an object causing itself. Specifically for an object to cause itself to come into being, it must be prior to itself. This expressly forbids the universe from causing itself, which would otherwise scupper the conclusion.
God's cause
The argument primarily exists to justify the existence of a first cause. This is an ultimate cause for the universe that doesn't need a cause itself to come into being. In the theological extension to apply the argument to God's existence, the first cause is defined as God and God is defined as the first cause. As Aquinas said at the end of his first cause argument:
“”Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
|
Therefore God, as the first cause, is exempt from having a cause itself. This is usually dismissed as a form of special pleading by detractors of the argument. There is no reason, at least within the first cause argument itself, that God should be immune to causality but the universe is not.
Problems with the argument
The fundamental flaw of the argument is that it fails to address how can we know what or who is the first cause. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension?
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered that do not have discernible causes. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is absolutely impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is truly random and uncaused, providing a counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause.
Another example is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect[wp] and Hawking radiation.[wp]