The universe and an agent cause
The universe needs an explanation for its existence. It would need an explanation even if it had always existed, but how much more obvious is the need when we realize the universe has existed for only a finite time (approximately 13.8 billion years).
I argued that the best explanation is a necessarily existent agent cause. Agent causes (you and I included) have this unique ability to initiate new states of affairs. I, for instance, have the ability to initiate the existence of a brilliant new article at www.randalrauser.com on a regular basis. So there is nothing especially contentious about invoking an agent cause to explain the universe’s origination. We are very familiar with agent causes and what they do since we are agent causes ourselves.
Ray is not happy about this proposal so he has countenanced some rather exotic alternative explanations over the last few days.
Infinite regress of event causes: To begin with, Ray has suggested an infinite regress of prior event causes might have brought the universe into being. This despite the fact that there is no evidence of an actually infinite series of event causes causing anything ever.
Self-caused: Ray then broached the possiblity of self-causation. Maybe the universe was clever enough to hop around prior to its own existence and bang itself into being. Right. And people find the doctrine of one God in three persons tough to swallow.
Necessarily existent: More recently Ray has suggested that the universe itself exists of necessity, even if its component parts are in various contingent arrangements. And what reason is there to think that this universe of finite age itself exists eternally of necessity? Good luck with that.
The cynic in me feels like I’m listening to Glenn Beck talking about Obama: He’s a socialist, a Muslim, pretty much anything but a good president.
Infinite regress? Self-caused? Necessarily existent? What is the justification for this dizzying parade of truly stupendous suggestions? Well at first blush it would seem to be the desire to have any explanation but an agent cause. Not sure why that is. The argument hasn’t yet stipulated that the agent cause which brought the universe into existence requires tithing or demands Victorian morality.
So what is the unstated prejudice against agent causes?
Tags: agent causation, Big Bang, cosmological argument, event causation, infinite regress, universe
21 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
The Atheist Missionary says:
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 6:07pm
This argument does nothing for the concept of the Judeo-Christian god. What do you rely on (aside from faith)to say that your necessarily existent agent is not an alien from another dimension?
randal says:
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 6:46pm
“This argument does nothing for the concept of the Judeo-Christian god.”
On the contrary, it establishes the existence of a non-physical, necessarily existent agent of great power and intellect (based on the complexity and fine-tuning of the effect, i.e. the universe). That ’bout gets you all the core attributes of God in the major western monotheisms. But as for most atheists, they are distinctly less sanguine about accepting the existence of a necessarily existent agent of great power and intellect.
toryninja says:
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 7:12pm
What I find interesting is that many atheists will say there is absolutley no evidence for God but then in the same breath admit that a “God of the philosophers”/Deism is an entirely reasonable position to hold (though of course they believe it to be wrong). I’ve heard every New Atheist say this.
So how can they say there is no evidence for a god if they admit there is evidence for a god?
And yes, I realize evidence for a god doesn’t demand that the Trinitarian Yawhew of the Bible exists. But of course if evidence for a god exists which has all the core attributes of God in the major western monotheisms does not the Christian god then at least have some evidence for its existence?
randal says:
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 7:36pm
Allow me to offer the predictable rebuttal: “Maybe there is evidence for a god. But then there’s also evidence for the flying spagetti [sic] monster and the tooth feiry [sic] and leprecawns [sic] too!” (high fives all around)
Brad Haggard says:
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 10:00pm
What I like about the FSM response is that when you press it to have the same characteristics as “God” traditionally has, the skeptic will try to defend nonsensical definitions for “spaghetti”, “flying” and “monster.”
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 12:57pm
Because the word “God” is heavily overloaded and means a lot of different things depending on context.
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/has-science-buried-god-report-from-the-dawkinslennox-discussion/
Dawkins started by saying it depends which god you are talking about. He said there were three types of gods:
i) Einstein’s poetic metaphor.
ii) The deist god. Dawkins said there was a “reasonably respectable case for a deist god”, but it was not one he believed in.
iii) The thousands of other gods including Yahweh, Zeus and the Christian God.
Evidence for deism? Some, depending on assumptions. Evidence for Yahweh? Questionable at best.
randal says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 3:41pm
Dawkins would have given his three options a severe retooling if he had actually read what philosophers of religion and theologians mean when they say “God”. But of course he’s too smart to do that. Just read his smarmy intro in the soft-cover edition of God Delusion in which he defends his ignorance.
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 4:02pm
As Anthony Gottleib put it:
That being said, I’ve already pointed out that Dawkins’ arguments actually do pretty well. They don’t use the terminology of “philosophers of religion and theologians” but they cover the same ground.
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 12:52pm
Actually, you brought it up. I pointed out that closed timelike curves are not ruled out by relativity at present.
I did not actually propose that the universe got started that way. For one thing, forming a CTC requires already-existing mass-energy.
randal says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 3:39pm
So you’re not considering this option? I’m relieved (though it has actually been floated in the literature).
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:01pm
We can only account for what we currently see back to about 13.8 billion years (minus a few femtoseconds). That is not the same thing as the universe existing only a finite time.
In every other area, when we can’t trace something back beyond a certain point, we don’t assume it popped in out of nowhere. Why assume so for the universe?
randal says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 3:42pm
You really do sound like the occasionalist denying efficient causation: “I didn’t see billiard ball A cause billiard ball B to move. All I saw was ball A moving and then ball B moving.
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 3:54pm
No, I’m actually taking physicists at their word when they say “we don’t know what happened before this point”. “We don’t know” is a live option.
A lot of people don’t like that option, but there’s a long history of people being rather more certain than they should have been… to their own detriment, and usually the detriment of others as well.
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:03pm
Yes… new arrangements of things. We sculpt new statues (out of pre-existing matter) we write (using pre-existing paper and ink) or speak (vibrating pre-existing air) to communicate new ideas (which are encoded in new arrangements of pre-existing neurons).
What we haven’t seen is agents creating new mass-energy out of nothing. Can you point to an example?
Ray Ingles says:
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 3:57pm
You know, this is one question where I was really hoping for an answer.
Sean R Reid says:
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 7:49pm
Ray, I don’t mean to demean you in any way, but, honestly, is there anything you would accept as an answer?
When I read your responses it’s as if you’re asking for apples by talking about oranges. So when Randal replies in oranges you get upset that he won’t answer your questions.
It also seems like you’re holding Randal, or, possibly, any theist, to a standard to which they’ll never measure. At that point it becomes less about discourse and seeking answers and more about proving a point of which only you are aware needs to be made.
You seem to be grinding an axe, which I can’t/won’t fault you for doing. But you can’t logically get angry with someone for not measuring up to your expectations. Particularly when there are obvious breakdowns in the efficacy of your communication (this is not to say you communicate poorly, only that what you are asking doesn’t appear to be as clear to those whom you are questioning as it is to you).
Ray Ingles says:
Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 12:27pm
Well, I agree my framework and presuppositions are different from Randal’s. We probably have a Kuhnian ‘incommensurable paradigms’ issue going on.
Quite possibly… but that doesn’t mean it’s an irrational standard.
I like to be clear about what I know, to what degree I know, and how I know. For the things I do believe, I can give what I think is a pretty good accounting. And for the things that I believe are false, generally even more so.
But I also like to be clear about the unknowns, too – what we don’t know. As you point out below, multiple universes are a stretch, as is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent First Cause – but what evidence do we have to pick between them, or even that those are the only options?
On the other hand, there are things that could convince me. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t need more than Saul of Tarsus got, for example.
I rather suspect that those different presuppositions are getting in the way (and I don’t exempt myself from that).
Ray Ingles says:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:09pm
You’re trying for an analytic proof of a first cause. It should be your job to think up and address potential objections.
It’s possible to make a suggestive case for deism. That’s not the same as a conclusive case, let alone an analytic proof.
I’ve also pointed out a long history of people thinking they’ve proven something about the universe when they actually ignored some possibilities simply because they were counterintuitive. Frankly, given how much of what we’ve found about the universe has turned out to be counterintuitive, my money’s on the explanation being something nobody’s thought of yet.
Sean R Reid says:
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 8:16pm
Regarding the apparent disdain for theists not being equally applied to deists, the only cogent argument is an admission of fear with regards to politics.
At least, here in the US that would be a concern. Many atheists/agnostics/non-believers/non-practicing folks are painfully concerned about the rise of a theocratic ruling class. Deism seems to be politically agnostic as well as religiously ambivalent. People aren’t voting in favor of their unnamed deity that might or might not have created the universe. Whereas, Christians and Muslims have committed any number of atrocities while feeling they’ve been directed by God to do so. Particularly in areas of power politics.
So Dawkins probably feels more comfortable “supporting” (in quotes only because it’s tentative support in lieu of a better position) deistic ideas of God than he would confirming any theistic bias. Particularly because he’s betting that theism is the source of all strife and trouble in this world (a claim that South Park dealt with quite succinctly, even if hidden behind their usual scatological humor).
I also found it amusing, both when I was not a believer and after, that the notion of multiple universes seemed infinitely more plausible than the idea of any sort of creator entity (deist, theist or pantheist). Not that I’m against the idea of parallel universes. I mean, Earth-2 is pretty awesome in the DCU! It’s just that it’s no less of a leap of faith, albeit one robed in scientific language instead of philosophical.
Beetle says:
Friday, April 29, 2011 at 1:18am
In addition to being an interesting idea, the notion of multiple universes at least has some provocative mathematics behind it. Thinking it to be true is harmless since there are no implications for how you should live your life.
The idea of a creator entity is also interesting, but has no evidence for it beyond tradition, authority, and revelation. Moreover, as one gets even a single step beyond deism, there are plenty of folks who invent implications for how you should live your life, and many of these have proven to be anything but harmless.
Sean R Reid says:
Friday, April 29, 2011 at 2:53am
Actually, assuming you’re referencing other major religions and not the more “fringe” elements, there is a strikingly similar common moral thread that runs throughout all forms of theism and pantheism. Even, to an extent, certain segments of deism prescribe a particular way of living. It doesn’t necessarily require a belief in an involved, omnipotent creator.
To these ends I would recommend checking out the works of Joseph Campbell. Particularly his “Power of Myth” series or “Hero With a Thousand Faces.”