3.3 God as First Cause

It's Thursday, philosophy journey day. Previous posts in my philosophical journey are at the bottom.
___________________________
1. One of the oldest and best known arguments for the existence of God has to do with the cause of the world. In the 300s BC, Aristotle (384-322BC) wrote about the "Prime Mover." [1] His argument was that everything that moves is pushed -- and of course the world is in motion. He did not believe this pushing could go back infinitely, so there must have been a first Mover that itself is unmoved. [2]

In the 1200s, Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) picked up this argument from motion and expanded it. God is not only the first Mover, but the first and last Cause, the only necessary Being. From our perspective today, some of his arguments make more sense than others. But the core argument stands.

Galileo effectively eliminated any simplistic version of the motion argument, discovering that a body in motion wants to stay in motion, and a body at rest wants to stay at rest. Bodies need pushed because of friction and gravity. Their natural disposition is to stay in motion forever.

2. The arguments from the need for a Cause and a Necessary Being continue to make sense. In fact, in a very real sense, they are more powerful arguments than ever.

William Lane Craig (b. 1949) has put the "efficient cause" argument like this. An efficient cause is that which brings about an effect. [3]

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

This argument from cause is called the cosmological argument.

Modern physics has greatly helped us out here because it is currently the consensus among cosmologists that the universe had a beginning in time. Indeed, the current physics understanding of the beginning is so distinct that it fits very nicely with the argument above.

3. The biggest objection to the cosmological argument has always been the counterproposal that causes might go back in time infinitely. For example, David Hume (1711-76) famously made this countersuggestion in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779).

In twentieth century physics, this showdown played out in the debate over the "big bang" versus "steady state" theories of the universe's origins. The "steady state" theory was quite popular among those who wanted to see the universe as infinitely old. [4] Yet others recognized that Einstein's equations of general relativity might also point to the universe having a distinct beginning in time. [5] 

This theory was derisively called the "big bang" theory. Indeed, it is ironic that many Christians today associate the Big Bang theory with atheism. This is a huge misunderstanding -- indeed, one that demonstrates great ignorance. Some of the key early proponents of the so called "big bang theory" were Christians who saw how well it supported the cosmological argument. By the same token, some of its most vocal opponents despised it for that same reason.

The "Big Bang" theory won the day. It is now the consensus of modern cosmology that the universe's existence goes back to 13.7 years ago when the entire universe was, effectively, a point. [6] For a few decades, a counter suggestion known as the "oscillating Big Bang" was proposed -- it allowed the universe to be infinitely old by a recurring expansion and collapse of the universe. But for several decades now it has been acknowledged that there is not enough matter in the universe to suppose such an infnite cycle.

William Lane Craig has given a more philosophical counterargument to the "infinite regress" counterargument. He has argued that there is no true infinite in this universe. The idea of infinity is a valid mathematical concept, but it does not seem to exist in the observable universe. Quantum theory has eliminated any sense that matter or energy can be infinitely divided. And cosmological theory does not hold the universe to be infinite in scope. Thus, Craig argues, an infinite regression in time would break all known precedence in this universe.

4. So we have strong support currently from science that the universe had a beginning. Why then, did it begin? The supposition of an Intelligent Creator remains the easiest answer -- especially after we consider the fine tuning of the universe (the next article). However, other options have been suggested.

The strongest counterproposal, it seems to me, is the multiverse proposal. It basically proposes -- with no evidence, mind you, that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, each with its own laws and physics. You are here reading this because our universe works. [7] But, for these universes to arise mindlessly, the overwhelming majority of them must be chance failures. We are just the extraordinarily, fantastically lucky ones.

Stephen Hawking advanced a version of this proposal that I call the "Hail Mary" proposal. What if, just maybe, something is possible in the quantum universe that we don't know about, something that makes universes popping out of nowhere possible. You might call this an "atheist of the gaps" argument. [8]

5. To be sure, a First Cause is not yet the Christian God. Perhaps we could assert omnipotence. After the next article we might assert omni-intelligence. Nor am I arguing that this is a definitive argument -- our own fallibility must surely keep us a little shy of absolute proof. I have been a little rhetorically sharp to have fun.

I don't consider this argument definitive. (God may in his infinite knowledge and understanding.) But I do find it very persuasive.

[1] Metaphysics XII.6-10.

[2] I am probably skewing Aristotle and Aquinas a little. They were probably thinking more in terms of potentiality and actuality rather than time.

[3] This is his formulation of the Islamic version of this argument, called the Kalam cosmological argument. William Lane Craig, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (Macmillan, 1979).

Aristotle identified four different types of causes in his Physics (II.194b16–195a3): 1) the material cause, which is simply the material of something, 2) the efficient cause or the direct cause -- this is what we most think of as a cause, 3) the formal cause or essence of something, and 4) the final cause, which we think of more as the purpose of something. 

[4] Notably, the charismatic scientist Fred Hoyle argued for this position in the 1950s. The idea is that, as the universe expands, a tiny bit o matter is generated to fill the new space.

[5] Einstein himself was repulsed by this possibility and even added a constant to his equations to try to stop them from suggesting it.

[6] The decisive moment in this debate was when a cosmic microwave background (CMB) was discovered in 1965. This radiation, steadily decreasing, is thought to come from the early universe. If the universe were infinitely old, not only would it not exist, but the amount of time would have likely dissipated such a decreasing radiation to zero long ago.

[7] This is the so-called "anthropic principle." Whatever the unlikelihood of us being here, we are here. So we must just be the lucky ones. This proposal is circular and very unsatisfying philosophically.

[8] Here I'm mimicking the well-known warning called the "God of the gaps." God is used to explain some gap in our current knowledge. The problem is when science fills in those gaps. Does that mean our faith now goes away? My quip about the "atheist of the gaps" is that Hawking supposes that we will one day find a non-theist explanation for the universe's existence that he does not currently have. Of course, theoretically, we may.

___________________________

Introduction
1.1 What is philosophy?
1.2 Is philosophy Christian?
1.3 Unexamined assumptions
1.4 Socrates and the Unexamined Life

Logic
2.1 The Structure of Thinking 
2.2 When Thinking Goes Wrong
2.3 Three Tests for Truth
2.4 Knowing the Bible
2.5 Plato and Aristotle
2.6 The Story of Logic 

Philosophy of Religion
3.1 Faith and Reason
3.2 How can we know that God exists?
3.3 God as First Cause