THE UNCAUSED CAUSE

When it comes to the scope of our universe, there are only two positions regarding its size and duration.  It is either finite or infinite.  Modern discoveries in astronomy and physics indicate that our universe had a beginning and, though expanding (actually, because it is expanding), has a boundary.  Furthermore, its entropic nature indicates that our universe will have an end, thus a limit to its expansion and so a limit to its expanse.  Scientific observation alone argues for a universe that is bounded in both space and time.

Nevertheless, many atheists have a philosophical objection to a finite universe.  That is because a finite universe, like all finite things, must have been caused.  Therefore, if our universe were finite, it had a cause.  What would be the cause of that cause?  Of course, the Christian answers, “God.”  But the atheist retorts that God would then be an uncaused cause, a contradiction.  To resolve what he perceives as a contradiction, the atheist concludes that our universe is, in some manner or another, infinite in both time and space.  To accord with what science has informed us about the scope of our universe, the atheist may argue that only the current form of the universe is finite or that finite portions (like ours) of the infinite universe are in different states of evolution or that our universe is but a bubble in an infinite multiverse.

However, does the atheist’s infinite universe actually resolve his problem with the uncaused cause?  No, it doesn’t.  All the atheist has accomplished by attributing infinity to the universe is to make the universe itself uncaused.  To wit, if the universe is eternal then it can have no cause, because that which has always existed cannot have been caused to come into existence.  Thus, the problem of the uncaused cause remains.  However, the atheist is now confronted with a genuine contradiction in making our universe the uncaused cause.  One thing we are certain about our universe is that everything that composes it has been caused.  Our universe is ruthlessly mechanical as determined by the laws of nature (at least in regard to its physical elements), yet the atheist who posits that the universe is infinite must deny the universality of causality, at least in extremis.  Hence a contradiction:  The universe is causal except that which must be acausal to accord with its infinity, which in effect means everything.  (Click here for an article on this and other intractable problems raised by an infinite universe.)

The Christian avoids the atheist’s dilemma by acknowledging that our universe is finite and recognizing that its cause is external to it.  That external cause, a creator which by definition must be greater than its creation, is not subject to the limitations we observe within our universe.  That external cause therefore can be understood to not be caused in any sense that we understand everything within the universe, and indeed the universe itself, to be caused.  Thus, the Christian not only comprehends our universe, including its origin, to be entirely consistent with the laws of nature which govern it, but also that its creator – i.e., God – is apart from and beyond it.  Like all creators, God is not bound by his creation.  Just as my nature, as a manufacturer, is wholly distinct from and profoundly superior to the products I create, so is God's nature in relation to His creation, our universe.

In this way, the Christian does not confuse the realm of the natural with that of the supernatural.   However, the atheist who embraces an infinite universe must confound the two to accept both the causality that we presently observe of the universe with the lack of causality in its essence.

Comments

[Francisco Rodriguez]

Hi there :),

Though you and I pretty much are on the same camp regarding origins, I'm taking issue with this formulation:

"One thing we are certain about our universe is that everything that composes it has been caused. Our universe is ruthlessly mechanical as determined by the laws of nature (at least in regard to its physical elements), yet the atheist who posits that the universe is infinite must deny the universality of causality, at least in extremis. "

Sounds to me like a fallacy of composition, but then again I might be wrong, or perhaps it's just the way you've worded it.

[Bill]

Hi, Francisco.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I agree what I wrote is sloppy. A key point I elided over is that the atheist must rely upon nature to explain the universe because he believes nothing exists beyond nature (i.e., supernatural such as God). As a matter of science nature is universally causal.* Consequently, there would be no reason other than faith for an atheist to believe that the universe, as a natural entity, has not also been caused. By assigning the attribute of infinity to it to get around a supernatural uncaused cause is nothing but the atheist's version of the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Regards, Bill

* I know that some believe the quantum realm is non-causal, but I see no reason to think that this is so because of our incomplete knowledge of the quantum realm (for example, does it have more than three spatial dimensions thus imposing a serious limit on what little we can observe of it).

Also, it is true that only physical entities are universally subject to causation. Human volition, which is natural but not physical, is not. A Christian understands how this can be so. An atheist must either be a materialist and argue that volition is nothing but the deterministic mechanics of the physical matter of the brain or acknowledge the non-physicality of volition without any explanation for it. If he opts for the latter (a reasonable position), I don't see how that acknowledgment helps him out of his dilemma on the origin of the universe.

[Francisco Rodriguez]

Hi Bill,

Glad my comments were helpful this time.

Something I've noticed when discussing this issue with atheists is that the ones who do accept the Big Bang will affirm theirs is the default position by working with different (may I say uncommon) definitions of time and causation, e.g. time being a measure of change, (natural) existence having precedence over logic when discussing cause and effect, etc. Have you seen the same pattern?

Regards,

Francisco

[Bill]

Hi, Francisco.

Yes, I have, although I don't see how it helps the atheist's case.

For example, I think that when you get down to the nitty-gritty about time, it is correct to define it as the duration of change -- and by change, that is fundamentally the motion of particles. Thus, without change duration is meaningless.

So in that sense an atheist might argue that the material of the universe always existed, but there was no time until motion (i.e., change) occurred. For the sake of argument, let's say that's so. (It may well be if we distinguish between the material cause of the universe and its formal and final causes.) This still leaves the question of what caused that initial motion, and that question poses the same dilemma for the atheist.

If the cause is natural, as the atheist must argue, it is either the first cause and so an uncaused caused or it is but one cause in an infinite regression of causes. The former results in the inconsistency that causation is not universal in nature. (Furthermore, to embrace this inconsistency by dismissing the need for a logical explanation for all natural phenomenon opens the door to a lawless universe, of which we have no evidence.)

The latter makes a hash of the whole point of the atheist's definition of time. This is how the atheist's recourse to uncommon definitions of time and causation, as you put it, deepen the hole he is already in and have the effect of buttressing the theist's argument for God as creator of the universe.

The theist distinguishes between the natural and the supernatural. So, he can understand how the supernatural (being superior to nature) can cause nature to begin and operate under a consistent and universal set of physical laws. Thus, there are no contradictions in nature because the uncaused cause of nature is supernatural and not subject to nature's laws.

The theist's argument is a logical one founded upon a sound premise (scientific observations are consistent with a finite universe). Once an atheist is reduced to dismissing the need for logic in understanding the true nature of the universe, I would humbly suggest he has thrown in the towel.

Regards, Bill

[Ryan G]

First of all, if the theist or atheist to assumes the nature of the universe in order to prove their theological worldview they have engaged in a fallacious case of question begging.

Second of all, your conceptions of finite and infinite universes fails to take into account quantum mechanics. The most basic elements of matter, electrons and quarks, have mass but do not have volume, and are considered point particles. Black holes are similar; they do not appear to have volume at the singularity where all of the mass exists. What this means is that spatial dimensions are not a necessary property of mass. Further, if the Law of Conservation of Energy holds true, then all the mass that currently exists in the universe existed prior to the creation of the universe, without spatial dimensions. Now we have the potential of an infinite universe that avoids the contradiction that you propose. Without spatial dimensions, there is no time i.e. all the mass in the universe existed in a state lacking causality. So what was the “first cause” bringing non-extended mass into extended spatial demnsions? I don’t know, but if I did I’d be a Noble prize winning physicist.

Nevertheless, as witnessed by black holes and point particles, non-spatial mass units can interact within spatial coordinates, and we only need to posit some natural reaction between non-dimensional mass units at the moment of the Big Bang in order to do away with the need for an “uncaused cause.” You may object on the grounds, “what came before the Big Bang.” The key is to understand that time cannot exist without spatial relations between objects, therefore nothing by definition occurred prior to the Big Bang, yet all the mass in the universe existed timelessly prior to the Big Bang (although “prior” is only convention since time is not a property of non-dimensional mass.)

[Bill]

Hi, Ryan. I've responded to you in a new article titled "Uncaused Cause Redux".

Regards, Bill