COSMOLOGICAL RESPONSE
Since so many over
the years seem to be impressed and convinced by this empty rhetoric, I will
devote considerable time to expose its flaws. This Cosmological Argument,
sometimes also known as the First Cause Argument, states that all effects have
causes, except for the uncaused first cause, which we must then regard as a god.
Four separate key problems, each standing on their own, sufficiently invalidate
this line of argument. While reasonable justification for parts of the
Cosmological Argument would be millions of times more
valuable for Deism than the Bible would ever hope to be, this line of reasoning
is not without its major problems.
1) Causes and effects do not
belong to an established relationship in physical science. Quite the contrary
to the claim that all effects require causes, the field of quantum mechanics is based on the principle of non-causality. Creation of
strings,[i]
creation of matter and antimatter from a vacuum, and perhaps radioactive decay
are three examples of processes that we currently believe do not necessarily
require a cause. This proposition, if correct, invalidates the presumption that
“all effects have causes” and consequently destroys the argument. The matter
produced by vacuum fluctuation is composed of equal positive and negative
energy. Mathematically, the positive energy cancels out the negative energy so
that a sum of no energy was created. It is feasible to
propose that the universe itself is composed of a sum of zero energy, which
according to known physical law, is no less possible than the complete absence
of mass-energy from the universe. One might even consider nothingness to be
unstable, and the creation of matter to be inevitable.
2) Causes and effects are
universal concepts. If we assume, for a moment, that the universe has not
always existed, we cannot apply supposed laws of the universe (e.g. all effects
have causes) to explain how the universe came into existence. Assuming the
existence of universal laws, which are of course characteristics of the universe,
before the existence of the universe itself is an absurd strategy for the
apologist to take. Furthermore, the practice of discussing anything that may have
existed prior to the universe is epistemologically meaningless. Dictating the
rules of logic outside of the universe is like supposing the properties of
numbers that are greater than infinity.
3) Existence must necessarily
precede cause. Moreover, something cannot cause an effect unless it first
exists. Here we see that existence must be the first component of the universe.
Even if there were a physical law of causes and effects, existence is first
necessary. Therefore, something must exist before it can become part of a
causal relationship. The question now becomes, “Exactly what is it that we should
suppose first existed, regardless of whether it has existed eternally or
without cause?” The much more simple explanation is that the universe is the
first “uncaused existence.”[ii]
Interjecting a creator into the mix only needlessly complicates the issue
because the existence of the universe already gives us what we need.
Even if we propose that all
effects except the first one require a cause, why must an infinitely complex
creator need to be part of the solution? Would not even a breakdown in physical
law be a much more simple explanation than the existence of an unlimited
presence? While the influences and persuasions of society may not make it seem
much more feasible to say that the universe would be that which first existed,
the facts are what they are. There is absolutely nothing to rule out the
possibility that the universe is an oscillating or eternal phenomenon.[iii]
Besides, since we have already established that matter can likely arise
spontaneously from a zero energy state, we already have a working hypothesis. If
we refuse this deduction, we not only have to explain the origin of the god,
but also explain how the same reasoning for this god cannot
be applied to the origin of the universe.
4) The argument contradicts
itself by attempting to circumvent its own axiom that “all effects have causes”
by baselessly inserting an exception: “God is the uncaused effect.” An updated
version of the Cosmological Argument, called the Kalam
Argument,[iv]
changes the assertion that “all effects have causes” to “all things that begin
to exist have causes” in order to erase this fourth objection. In other words, “God
is an uncaused effect because he has always existed.” The argument is now cleverly disguised as an ad hoc explanation because it deals with all things, which
necessarily exist, except the hypothesized God, prejudicially excluded through
special pleading, simply because this is the intent of the argument. In other words,
the argument deliberately excludes from scrutiny what it hopes to prove through
scrutiny. Furthermore, the updated argument still does not address the three
previous points.