atheism religion reason evolution the bible blog resources media reviews forum

The First Cause Argument

Posted: 13 May 2009
With regards to the first cause argument, there are two kinds of theists. The first one is one who accepts that the burden of proof is placed upon them to prove that God is the creator of the universe. More often than not, any arguments raised from this group will fall into the trap of the 'special pleading' fallacy. The other group comprises of theists who refuse to accept that the burden of proof is on them, and instead spend their time criticising scientific explanations of natural events as incomplete and lacking. Prime example being the Big Bang. Short explanation: It is widely accepted by cosmologists that about 13.7 billion years ago, all the energy of the universe was compressed into an almost infinitely dense point referred to as a singularity. The Big Bang describes the event that is believed to have started the universe's action.

Common fallacies encountered when arguing the case for a Creator

Theists then like to ask "What came before the Big Bang?". Thus far, science has been unable to answer this question definitively, insofar as all the laws of the universe as we know it break down at the point of the singularity. Everything we understand about the universe no longer applies once we begin to talk about the singularity. While there has been much discussion and debate within the scientific community over this, there has thus far been no definitive answer forthcoming. Theists then use this lack of solid scientific theories as being evidence that God was the prime mover behind the event. This line of argument commits, on top of the already mentioned burden of proof fallacy, both the fallacy of false dilemma, as well as that of an argument from ignorance.

The real cause of the universe:

What, then, caused the Big Bang/universe? I would propose that the Big Bang/universe was in fact uncaused. Let me explain. Time is a physical aspect of our universe. This much can be proven using General Relativity, which has been supported by experimental data. For example, one can look at the time dilation prediction of General Relativity, which predicts that time will run slower at lower gravitational potentials. This has been confirmed by the Haefele-Keating experiment and GPS itself. Time can be affected and changed by other physical systems, and if time can be affected by physical systems, it would be reasonable to suggest that time is of a physical nature. Without the universe, there is no reason to believe that time as we know it would still exist. In this respect, it would be no different to any other observable physical phenomena in our universe. No one proposes that gravity exists in the absence of our universe, so why should time be an exception?

Basically, what reason is there to believe that time exists independently of the universe? None whatsoever. As far as we know it, time exists only as an aspect of the universe. In other words, the universe has existed at every point in time. There can be no 'beginning' to the universe, as a 'beginning' would make a reference to a 'time' before the universe. Considering that the only naturalistic assumption is that time is in itself a dimension of the universe, it would be a contradiction to postulate that time existed before the universe. For the same reasons, it would be impossible to say that time has not always existed, as the statement 'always existed' is contingent on the concept of time itself. As such, one might be able to argue that it is impossible for the universe to have had a beginning. And without a beginning, one can no longer claim that the universe has a cause.

It might be worthwhile to note that while this line of logic would conclude that the universe was uncaused, it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value, to arrive at a point where entropy at a maximum and the free energy is zero. Proponents of the idea that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time do come into conflict with this law, as the universe would essentially be in a state of total disorder given infinite time since, as we can see, the universe is clearly not yet at that stage. The argument being proposed in this essay is different because it is simply that the universe can't have been caused. It means that the universe has always existed at every point in time, but it does not mean that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. The key difference has already been explained in the paragraph above.

Theistic arguments for a Creator

Some theists might argue that cause and effect has to apply to the universe, reason being that in all observable instances in our universe, the law of causality applies. This argument is heavily flawed, for several reasons. Cause and effect is observed with relation to entities within the physical universe. The concept of creation applies within the universe, as far as we have observed. However, neither of these necessarily suggests that causality should apply to the universe. As far as we can tell, causality is a purely naturalistic phenomena. Causality itself is contingent on the existence of the universe; just like all other concepts, there is no reason to presume that they would still apply if the universe did not exist. We only know causality as a natural process, and as such, cannot presume that it would apply to the universe as such. It would be an inversion of metaphysical axioms, since a universe must exist in order for cause and effect to exist.

Secondly, such an argument would work against the theist. If causality is a law that still holds, outside our universe, then there is no reason to believe that it must not apply to God. In fact there is reason to believe that it does apply to God; if God is the affecter in a causal chain then causality is applicable to God. In other words, if God is an element under causalities jurisdiction for the sake of him being the cause of the universe, we cannot then go and say that God is exempt from causality. The cause is just as much subject to the law of causality as the effect, since they are inseparable from it. Then, we can ask what caused God, and so on. Basically, such an argument would force the theist into committing the special pleading fallacy yet again. Lastly, the entire idea of cause and effect is a naturalistic concept contingent on time. The argument thus presupposes that time exists outside the universe, a claim that has zero evidence to support it. More on this in the next paragraph

The "problem" of semantics

Some might also accuse me of relying purely on semantics while making this argument. This is true to some extent, but instead of invalidating my argument, I find that in this case, it only serves to strengthen the case that the universe was uncaused. Consider this: every part of our language is deeply rooted in our experiences with the physical world. There is no language, there are no words, to describe something which is supernatural. The reason for this is simple: As humans, we only have the capability to experience the physical. Everything we experience has a firm grounding in physical reality. We simply do not possess the ability to experience the supernatural, insofar as we are creatures of the natural world, and the supernatural by definition resides outside of the natural world. This does not necessarily mean that the supernatural does not exist. It only means that we have no reason to believe in the supernatural, and everything that goes along with it. This is important, because theists often argue upon the lines of supernatural events, when it is very clear that their arguments about the supernatural are in fact formed based on their experiences with the natural world. Take the idea of time existing outside of the universe. No human has ever dealt with time as a non-physical concept. We have only experienced time within our physical universe, and if anyone were to propose a special form of time, one that exists outside physical reality, the burden lies upon him to prove it.
In discussions relating to supernaturalism, it is common to see theists arguing their position using a special version of causality, which is reliant about a supernaturalistic concept of time. The problem with their arguments is, their so-called supernatural concepts are in fact ones which draw heavily from the physical time and causality! They simply take their experiences of time in physical reality, and pretend that it is non-physical! Analogously, it would be like a person plagiarising someone else's work and pretending that it is his own original material. Notice how their special versions of causality are virtually identical to the physical causality we experience, the only difference being that theistic causality is exempt from physical time, instead relying on 'supernaturalistic time'. What is supernaturalistic time? In an argumentative sense, it means nothing. It is simply a meaningless debating device.

By Benison Pang

You can find more information on the first cause argument in our Resources section.