THE UNCAUSED CAUSE REDUX

[Note:  Correspondent Ryan G. posted an interesting response to my “Uncaused Cause” article.  This prompted further consideration of the subject by me that I think is better presented here as a new article rather than in the comment section.]

Ryan,

My “Uncaused Cause” article was an empirical approach to the kalam cosmological argument, which states that everything that begins has a cause.  I expressed this in terms of the natural (all that begins) and the supernatural (an eternal creator of the natural).  Implicit in this distinction vis-a-vis the kalam cosmological argument is that a natural (that is, physical) entity that has no beginning would give rise to special pleading:  All of nature requires a cause except that which is necessary to rule out the existence of the supernatural.  Because that is specious, we can infer from the kalam cosmological argument the distinction I made between natural entities (they must have a beginning because they are uniformly subject to the laws of our universe) and a supernatural creator (who as the creator of those laws need not submit to them).

THE QUESTION REMAINS

With this in mind, let’s consider what you had to say.  I am not disputing the lack of dimensionality featured in the conventional models of quantum mechanics and the Big Bang.  I also don’t dispute the astounding dimensionality of the string hypothesis which, if proven, would knock a lot of holes in those models.  The science regarding the foundation of the universe remains unsettled, and my argument does not rest upon these particulars.  It rests upon the indisputable scientific observations that our universe is finite in space and time.  As such, it has a cause.

If I understand you correctly, Ryan, you argue that our universe did not have a beginning because it existed as a timeless, spaceless singularity, a dimensionless void containing all the matter of our universe, “before” it exploded as the Big Bang.   OK, let’s say that’s true.  A cause was still needed to change that matter from a formless singularity into the form of our universe.  So, your argument does not eliminate a first cause, at least in relation to the form of our universe.  That still leaves us with the question of whether that cause was natural or supernatural.

A WORD ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL

Before we go further, let me be clear about what I mean by supernatural.  I do not mean the superstition of New Age frippery or Halloween spooks.  I mean that which is superior to nature in the same manner in which a creator is superior to his creation.  A creator transcends his creation by bringing to it function thus form that the mere matter composing it can never bring about itself.  A creator is independent of his creation, whereas the origin of his creation is entirely dependent upon his will.  For example, a sculpture cannot exist without and prior to its sculptor, although the sculptor can surely exist without the sculpture.

DEAD ENDS

Now let’s consider what a natural cause of our universe, at least its transformation from a singularity, would entail.  It would have to be either internal or external to the singularity.  If it is internal and the singularity is timeless, then as a physical – therefore deterministic – entity the singularity could not exist in any state except that which was necessary and sufficient for that internal cause to bring about the event of the Big Bang.  If so, because no time exists to separate the events that would allow the development of a cause internal to the singularity, then the singularity could not exist except as the Big Bang.  Thus, the singularity and the Big Bang would be identical; it could not exist apart from that event occasioning the beginning our universe.  So, a natural cause internal to the singularity leaves us treading water.  We’re still in the same place when it comes to inquiring into the uncaused cause of our universe.

If the natural cause were external, then all the singularity would need to possess is the potential to explode as the Big Bang upon its interaction with the necessary outside forces.  Having only potentiality, it could exist in a state distinct from the Big Bang.  However, because all the known laws of physics break down in the singularity, it is nothing but sheer speculation as what the physical structure and mechanics of this existence would be.  Nevertheless, I think there is a reasonable metaphysical statement we can make about a natural cause of the Big Bang that is external to the singularity:  Either that external cause is part of a finite series of events culminating in the creation of our universe or it is a link in a chain of infinite regression.

I think you’ll agree that if it is the former, then all that has happened is that we punted the uncaused cause to another point.  Nothing is resolved by positing a natural cause of the Big Bang in this manner.  Similarly, if it is the latter, we are back to the flaw I cited in the naturalist’s argument:  The law of causation, which is ironclad in its application to all physical entities we have observed in nature, is contradicted by the existence of a physical entity (either the singularity, the structure within which it exists, or both) without a cause.  This is but one of the perversities that arise from reifying infinity, which is nothing more than a mathematical concept.  Mathematics is an entirely mental construct.  It is, like language and logic, a method to obtain knowledge but has no physical aspect.  Infinity is no more a quality of nature than the word “cat” is actually a cat.

A KNOWN DIMENSIONLESS PHENOMENON

Of course, Ryan, infinity is moot if a dimensionless singularity exists subject to a structure capable of acting upon it that is also without dimension.  But then we must acknowledge that a structure capable of effecting so fundamental a change in the singularity as to turn it into our universe is superior to it.  Furthermore, each and everyone of us knows of a dimensionless structure that is capable of manipulating nature:  The consciousness each of us possesses.  Therefore, we needn’t argue from ignorance that the timeless, spaceless structure external to the singularity that caused it to explode as the Big Bang must be a physical entity, because there is no other rational explanation.  We can reason that consciousness – a known dimensionless, non-physical, indeed immaterial, phenomenon – is that structure.

Such a consciousness would be supernatural in the sense previously described, because it would be superior to all nature (at least all nature that we can know from the evolution of the singularity into our universe) by causing that nature to exist.  Furthermore, as a consciousness it could act as an agent, free of the deterministic restraints that rule physical entities.  By that I mean it would possess the volition to act that is not dependent upon preceding conditions – i.e., it would have free will.

THE RELEVANCE OF FORM

Therefore, in the same manner that a sculptor can freely choose whether or not to fashion formless clay into a sculpture, this consciousness would have the power to freely choose whether or not to fashion a formless singularity into our universe.  Moreover, we can comprehend how this consciousness could bring the form of our universe to the void of the singularity just as the sculptor brings the form of his artistic vision to a lump of clay.  By the form of our universe I mean the precise fine-tuning of dozens of physical constants (i.e., the anthropic principle) and the fortuitous arrangement of matter (i.e., the “Rare Earth” hypothesis) that have made possible the existence of human beings.

Where else could this form come from?  How can form arise from within the formlessness of the singularity?  It cannot.  It must have imbued with form from without.  We know of no physical process except chance that could have produced the form of our universe.  Furthermore, as form implies function, we have no reason to believe that any purely physical process could have devised the form of our universe for the purpose of functioning as a habitat for human beings.  Yet, once again, we know of the one thing that can produce extremely complex form in service to function – consciousness, a mind.  Of course, it is this mind, this structure external to the singularity that exploded as the Big Bang and inaugurated our universe, that Christians, Jews, and others recognize as God the Creator.

In conclusion, reason leads to the belief that the uncaused cause of our universe is supernatural.  That supernatural cause, the mind of God, explains the physics, form, and function of our universe.  It is non-contradictory and applies known phenomena.  However, a natural cause either does nothing more than push the question elsewhere or results in apparent contradictions to which the only appeal is to ignorance – i.e., we don’t know how now, but we’ll figure out a naturalistic explanation someday.

Thanks, Ryan, for your remarks that prompted this discourse.

Regards, Bill