Theist argument:
Premise 1: All things that exist have a cause.
Premise2: God does not have a cause.
Conclusion: God is the first cause.
However, we have two contradictory premises here. Premise 1 is also on shaky ground. Where is the evidence that everything needs a cause? Then we have the Casimir effect where particles can just spontaneously come into existence.
Premise 2 is equally shaky. Just defining something does not impart it with existence of a particular set of values; for example square circles are pink. Square circles cannot exist, and therefore can not be pink. Why should defining god make him any more real?
So, lets re write that argument and keep it logically consistent.
Premise 1: All things that exist have a cause.
Premise2: God does not have a cause.
Premise 1: All things that exist have a cause.
Premise2: God does not have a cause.
Conclusion: God is the first cause.
However, we have two contradictory premises here. Premise 1 is also on shaky ground. Where is the evidence that everything needs a cause? Then we have the Casimir effect where particles can just spontaneously come into existence.
Premise 2 is equally shaky. Just defining something does not impart it with existence of a particular set of values; for example square circles are pink. Square circles cannot exist, and therefore can not be pink. Why should defining god make him any more real?
So, lets re write that argument and keep it logically consistent.
Premise 1: All things that exist have a cause.
Premise2: God does not have a cause.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.
The theist now has to abandon this argument, or concede that God does not exist (If he wants to maintain consistency).
37 comments:
Sometimes I annoy myself for being such a pedant- but I don't think particles come into existence spontaneously as a consequence of the Casimir effect. As I understand it the Casimir effect is a force that arises as a consequence of the structure of the vacuum. But the vacuum itself seethes with particles popping in and out of existence spontaneously.
I'm sorry to be such a pain.
Anyway- you are absolutely right that the argument is invalid. Theists have countered your answer by saying that God is supernatural, outside of time and space. In that case- why compare him to things within the universe if the two are, by the theist's own admission, not comparable? On that basis the argument can be shown to have failed without even needing to address the validity of the premises.
As I understand it the Casimir effect is a force that arises as a consequence of the structure of the vacuum.
Yes, I do have a little problem with the Casimir effect too. It could be argued that you have to set it up first (cause). However, my understanding (and physics isn't my thing) it that you are producing something from nothing (uncaused). I'm sure Lee or Steve can clarify.
Theists have countered your answer by saying that God is supernatural, outside of time and space.
Yes, but they have to show that. That still does not get round the contradictory premises though. If no.1 were true, then god would still have to comply. If no. 2 were true, then as you can not include god in the set of everything (natural and supernatural). If you claim No.1 is true only for natural things, then as you say, you can not extrapolate to super natural things - which if the theist plays the out with space-time card- he can know nothing about it any way. That just reduces god to a description and not a reality.
Hi Billy,
I love debating about the first cause argument... but as always, people like you good shelf just show me up and summarise a far better argument in just a few lines.
I will now just rephrase the argument as you have done in future.
Lee
I will now just rephrase the argument as you have done in future.
Yeah, it saves a lot of time. I think sometimes we get too caught up in trying to offer scientific explanations that we forget the burden of proof is on the theist. I think we dont know enough about the universe to make any sound arguments for the existence of god.
Hi Jonathan,
As I understand it the Casimir effect is a force that arises as a consequence of the structure of the vacuum. But the vacuum itself seethes with particles popping in and out of existence spontaneously.
No time for reading, so this is coming straight from the top my head (or is it my arse?) I suppose I could read the link – but that would be easy.
I always thought/rememebered the Casimir effect as a measure of the force of the vacuum that resulted from virtual particles popping into and out of existence.
So I think we agree…?
I always point out these quantum effects to the theist who use the first cause argument – not so much that it ‘proves’ something can come from nothing (since the theist is always quick to point out that these virtual particles are already IN a universe) but to use it to show how wrong their premises are about cause and effect – there is no cause for these random processes (other than the universe of course they will point out again)
It shows however that their inductive (got that word from Brian) argument about the universe NOW can NOT be used to described the universe at the beginning since it is clearly on pretty shaky ground.
I also then point out that space and time came into ‘being’ at the Big Bang – therefore it is wrong to talk of a before, and hence again, the cause argument breaks down. (Unless they can tell me what is north of the North Pole of course)
OK… my times run out.
For the record (or for more complete bollocks on the subject from me) the last First Cause argument I debated was here,
http://checkmate101.blogspot.com/2008/04/
movie-review-expelled-no-intelligence.html
I thought I did rather well… though as you will see I do go on a bit.
Lee
Hi Billy,
I think sometimes we get too caught up in trying to offer scientific explanations that we forget the burden of proof is on the theist.
Agree, but just saying ‘prove it’ doesn’t help move the argument forward.
I like to talk to the theist and let them dig their own holes – then point out how inconsistent they are being. I honestly don’t think they notice.
I also started to concede (on the first cause argument) god… let a god exist - the first cause argument does not prove the theistic god in anyway… it is only a proof for the deistic god at best – and not a very good one.
I think we dont know enough about the universe to make any sound arguments for the existence of god.
Is that a slip of the fingers on the keyboard?
We do know enough about the universe… there is no evidence for the theistic described by the Christians.
Of course you know this, but I think I know what you mean though – their claim is a large one, and inductive arguments like this one is doomed from the start due to their ignorance.
Lee
Now I really have to go...
See ya
Lee
I like to talk to the theist and let them dig their own holes
I'm glad you do, I learn a lot from it
Is that a slip of the fingers on the keyboard?
I was meaning more in terms of the sbsolute claims that their arguments rely on - like everything must have a cause.
We certainly know enough to know there is no need to involve magic beings
The casimir effect is what happens when which virtual particles can come into existence is restricted. It doesn't cause this.
Theists will try and put God outside of space and time. But that doesn't work. God may be outside of our spacetime, but would have to be within some sort of spacetime for cause and effect (and hence creation) to happen.
Hi Billy, (and Lee and Jonathan),
for a rather more in depth examination of the relevant argument, I wd again recommend Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler. Sorry if I haven't seen and responded to any previous comments about this book, I know it might not be easy to get hold of, but it may be in the Glasgow Uni Library Billy.
Talk to you later,
Bruce
Bruce-
I've been doing a lt of blogging recently on the subject of the ongoing Anglican schism, perhaps you could pop over to my blog and leave some comments when you have a chance? I'm sure your perspective would be useful.
Bruce, do you have anything to say about what I actually wrote?
From what I have read from theists on the subject, they either ignore the contradictory premises or do the spacetime dodge which defeats the whole argument they are trying to make.
Steve, what is your understanding of whether particles can come into existence with out a cause?
By the way bruce, one of my comments for your blog seems to have gone missing (again!) - such are the wonders of moderation
Steve, what is your understanding of whether particles can come into existence with out a cause?
It is yes, they can.
Billy wrote: I'm glad you do, I learn a lot from it
I'll keep writing nonsense then – thanks :)
It is fun...
Steve wrote: It is yes, they can.
I agree, but the theist will always say the "Ah, yes, but that is only in our universe, and the universe had a cause..." bollocks.
However these QM effects are random, they break classical cause and effects laws - it is therefore a clue that the theist is talking out of their bottoms.
At least, this is what I think.
Lee
PS
I notice in the first cause argument debate I was in last used a different version of the argument than you used:
It was:-
Kalam first cause argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (that must necessarily be uncaused and never began to exist but always was, this I say, is God).
The little word 'begin'/'began' changes the flavour a little from the one you quoted.
They have the special pleading that God never 'began'. I argued against it of course, so will not repeat it again here.
Hi Bruce
for a rather more in depth examination of the relevant argument, I wd again recommend Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler.
Erm...
Every first cause argument debate I have been in the theist fell into the same holes. Normally an argument from ignorance or special pleading.
Could you maybe show me an argument from this Norman Geisler that doesn’t make these classic logical fallacies... anyone will do to get my interest and reading more.
Cheers
Lee
The Casimir effect is a weak attractive quantum force between conducting plates in a vacuum, predicted by Hendrik Casimir in 1948 using quantum electrodynamics.
Quantum uncertainty allows energy appear spontaneously from nothing, as long as it disappears again pretty quickly. Matter is just energy in another form so this allows particles to appear for a very brief time out of nothing at all, so that hypothetical empty space can be thought of as teeming with virtual particles which are particle-antiparticle pairs which exist for a very short time before disappearing again.
Casimir proved this in experimentation creating photons out of nothing because they are the easiest to make(no rest mass).
So this isn't just conjecture and speculation. It has actually been tested and measured.
Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum are a real phenomenon.
Lee have you considered sumarising that lengthy debate on your own blog?
Steven, I need to learn more physics. My understanding is that there are anti particles in this universe, could you view this universe as a casimir effect type phenomena, but on a larger scale over a larger time?
Lee,
Have you ever challenged these guys on showing that god does not need a cause (a bit hard I know, as you have to show he exists first).
The little word 'begin'/'began' changes the flavour a little from the one you quoted.
Yes, that really is dishonestly loading the argument in your favour. Why dont they just come out with "god created everything, therefore god is the first cos" Then we can have little gems like "the bible is the word of god, therefore it is true, therefore god exists". An approach not far removed from the one currently being employed by Joe Morrale for the Koran "I am not going to go around in circles with you.
I have conclusively proven via the Qu'ran that God exists and that the Qu'ran is indeed his word.
The admissions of many non-muslim scientists and plenty of scientists who embraced Islam as a result of learning arabic and verifying it is sufficient proof. "
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2833,
UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun
-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins,page30#211044
I'll try and pop over soon J. It wd take quite a bit of copying Lee.
Short I know, but at least this time I've replied! (I never mean to be rude when I don't...). I never cease to be amazed how prolific you all are by the way!
Back to Scotland tomorrow for a couple of weeks - Billy we'll need to hook up sometime 1 to 4 Aug
Sure Bruce let me know your plans
Hi Billy,
Yes, that really is dishonestly loading the argument in your favour.
It is a rather common tactic it seems... though it makes their argument even more meaningless than before. (Just takes longer to explain)
Why dont they just come out with "god created everything, therefore god is the first cos" Then we can have little gems like "the bible is the word of god, therefore it is true, therefore god exists".
That is what they are doing... just hiding the tracks a little better away from the faithful.
An approach not far removed from the one currently being employed by Joe Morrale for the Koran...
Oh dear...
+++++++++
Hi Bruce,
I don’t think you are being rude at all by not relying... I don’t expect a reply to every comment I make, but I personally don’t like to let a point go unaddressed – just me. While I have the time I will try and tackle any question on the topic of the validity of religion. It’s fun.
It wd take quite a bit of copying Lee.
Erm... I wonder if you could scan it and post it on your blog? Just a thought...
Just highlight (using some graphic software i.e. paint) the paragraph/s of choice.
I don’t want the whole book – if it is more than a page, it is probably too much to discuss on a blog anyway.
I never cease to be amazed how prolific you all are by the way!
As I said, while I have time – I write. At the moment, I have the time... next week? Who knows.
Besides, it is easy turning out the rubbish I write.
See ya
Lee
Hi Billy,
Lee have you considered sumarising that lengthy debate on your own blog?
Not until you just mentioned it.
Only have a few problems...
firstly I am rubbish at keeping things short.
Secondly, if I do summarise my arguments – my mistakes are easier to spot.
Thirdly – time, but I’ll give it a go though – should be fun, and could be useful.
People can tidy up my woolly thinking.
I need to learn more physics.
I just wish I could remember what I once knew... that would be a start.
My understanding is that there are anti particles in this universe
Yep... and this idea of anti particles I think came first from the maths in getting to E=mc^2
(Steve might like this... it’s all about how Special Relativity answers everything – although the full picture does of course need QM)
This solution is only an approximation (it assumes a particle is at rest)
The full equation is
E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
where p is the momentum.
If the object is at rest, p=0 is this becomes
E^2=m^2c^4
Now if we take the square root we get E=+/- mc^2
(It’s the maths that gives us the +/- if we remember our high school maths)
‘obviously’ the negative solution is just a trick of the maths... well Dirac wasn’t happy about this and looked into the problem further, and invented the idea of anti-matter.
OK – overly simplified, you can read more at wiki:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
could you view this universe as a casimir effect type phenomena, but on a larger scale over a larger time?
Erm... interesting.
Some do see the universe as just coming out of the quantum uncertainty in a vacuum with the total energy of the universe being zero. So I think the quick answer to your question is maybe yes. Not thought about it this way before though... Steve?
Have you ever challenged these guys on showing that god does not need a cause (a bit hard I know, as you have to show he exists first).
In a way yes, but a phrase it in a round-about sort of way. (Since if I assume God, anything is possible - all bets are off)
I ask why can’t the universe be uncaused?
I should take the direct approach I suppose, but like I say – I like to let them dig their own holes in the hope that they can then see the errors in their own thinking.
No good just me telling them the answer :)
Any and all answers they supply to my question seem to be equally valid to be applied to why God cannot be uncaused. It highlights then their special pleading and their ignorance on how the universe began (which of course, none of us really know).
OK – I’ll now start reading my long debate on the first cause and to try and summarise it.
Lee
Lee: Some do see the universe as just coming out of the quantum uncertainty in a vacuum with the total energy of the universe being zero. So I think the quick answer to your question is maybe yes. Not thought about it this way before though... Steve?
Doesn't the standard model hold that in the initial conditions of the big bang, matter and anti-matter were equally abundant. Then something happened (the model can't explain it) to cause what we call matter to out number what we call anti-matter.
Without this symmetry breaking does the energy of the initial universe balance out to zero?
Thanks lee, that actually made sense. However, if it is true that if you think you understand QM then you dont understand QM, then I dont understand QM (so I do understand it) :-)
Then something happened (the model can't explain it) to cause what we call matter to out number what we call anti-matter.
(Showing my ignorance here)Is the idea not that there are the same ammount, they just occupy different space?
Hi Rian,
Doesn't the standard model hold that in the initial conditions of the big bang, matter and anti-matter were equally abundant. Then something happened (the model can't explain it) to cause what we call matter to out number what we call anti-matter.
I think the general idea is that there was close to equal amounts of matter and antimatter… but you always get a little uncertainty with QM. So what we see is the little bit of imbalance.
It’s a little handy-wavy – sorry.
Without this symmetry breaking does the energy of the initial universe balance out to zero?
I think symmetry breaking is seen as a method to kick-start inflation when gravity breaks away from the other 3 forces – thus releasing a bucket load of energy.
So as for balancing out to zero… the idea is yes, within the uncertainty principle.
Lee
Hi Billy,
Thanks lee, that actually made sense.
Just hope I was right... :)
However, if it is true that if you think you understand QM then you dont understand QM, then I dont understand QM (so I do understand it) :-)
Erm… interesting logic.
I tried something similar during my QM tutorials… they just told me to do the maths and stop worrying about understanding it.
The understanding part is when you try and place your common everyday senses to quantum mechanics – words break down, but the maths works (well, mine did sometimes… it was hard)
Lee
I think the general idea is that there was close to equal amounts of matter and antimatter… but you always get a little uncertainty with QM. So what we see is the little bit of imbalance.
Are you saying that it is possible that more matter was actually produced?
Would an anti matter universe be any different? In other words, do you need a matter universe for stas and life etc?
"I think the general idea is that there was close to equal amounts of matter and antimatter… but you always get a little uncertainty with QM. So what we see is the little bit of imbalance."
There was something in New Scientist last week about this- I'll look it up tonight if I remember.
Never mind, it wasn't what I thought it was. -Looks embarrassed, wanders off quietly-
Never mind, it wasn't what I thought it was. -Looks embarrassed, wanders off quietly-
Ha! you are testing us and proving your divinity. PRAAAAIIIIISSSSE BE!
Billy asks: Are you saying that it is possible that more matter was actually produced?
The suggestion was that there was an imbalance – due to Quantum mechanical fluctuations.
There just happened to be more of one than the other.
Would an anti matter universe be any different?
Nope... all the properties are the opposite, so they behave (interact with each other) the same.
Positive charge becomes negative charge for example – the interaction then is the same.
Like charges repel, opposite charge attract.
So maybe we are living in an antimatter universe – how could you tell?
What we call positive in this universe, really could be negative – it is all just a label in the end.
In other words, do you need a matter universe for stas and life etc?
Just answered this above I hope.
There is no physical reason why you cannot have an anti-matter star – apart from we live in a universe with bucket loads of matter flying around and matter and anti-matter come together BANG. So forming anti-stars could be difficult.
Off on a tangent a little - There is a huge anti-matter gas cloud in our milky way
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109173722.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080112160830.htm
From the first link above:
” The cloud itself is roughly 10,000 light-years across, and generates the energy of about 10,000 Suns. The cloud shines brightly in gamma rays due to a reaction governed by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2.”
Keeps things interesting I find.
Isn’t the universe great... and some people want to tell us all the answers are in a book 2,000 years old – yeah right.
Lee
Lee, thanks for the correction to symmetry breaking. I was thinking of CP-violation - woops!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem
Had no idea there was a large anti-matter cloud kicking around. Very cool!
Damn, the links got cut off in the comment box
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2008/01/080109173722.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2008/01/080112160830.htm
Had no idea there was a large anti-matter cloud kicking around. Very cool!
Though not the place to go for your holidays...
Lee, thanks for the correction to symmetry breaking. I was thinking of CP-violation - woops!
Thanks - I forgot about this... I did say I was being hand-wavy on my explanation didn't I?
I just move it all under the blanket of uncertainty – you can hide a lot under this mat.
We have an imbalance – now we just have to explain why.
Just goes to show though how crap the first cause argument really is - it mentions none of this.
Their ignorance is so great, but they claim so much.
Lee
Wow, antimatter cloud. Didn't know about that
Post a Comment