Atheist take on first cause argument is wrong headed. What they get right is the possibly that we might not need to ascribe to the universe a "first cause" per se. what they don't seem to understand is that we don't need to prove the necessity of a first cause to find that belief in some form of prior condition such that a creative agent is necessities is rationally warranted.
two observations:
I. We dont' need to think in terms of proof.
There reason why a potion has to be absolutely proven when even science doesn't prove. If the issue is belief then the warrant for belief is sufficient to justify belief.
II. The concept of something from nothing is not only contrary to all observed phenomena but also not satisfying.
It just takes us back to magical thinking or duecex Machina. on in this case it's not "gods out of the machine" but Unbelief out of the machine.
Argument:
(1) All Naturalistic Phenomena Are Contingencies
Karl Popper:
"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)
We can draw distinction between eternal and temporal, the eternal will be synonymous with necessary and temporal with contingent.
(2)Universe is not a Necessary Outcome
Paul Davies:
"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."
"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)
(3)Space and Time constitute parts of space-time.
Dr. Sen Odenwald,Astronomer Nasa
Astronomy Cafe
ibid What is the relationship between space and time?
"Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.
This means that the one reality designated as "space/time" the four coordinate system, is the prior condition under which we find space and time. that means that both space and time are contingent upon space/time.
this brings up the question about the existence of Space/time. It grows out of universal expansion from the big bang, from singularity. What is the singularity and what produces the expansion?
(4) Total absolute nothing as a putative state of affairs is illogical and impossible.
*change in a timeless void is universally agreed upon by scientists to be impossible, this is why they assume no change beyond time or in a black hole. There is no sequences and thus no cause and effect.
* time is not nothing, time is something thus time can't exist in a state of total absolute nothing
*that means nothing could change so nothing come to be.
(5) Warrants the Notion of eternal Necessary Being.
*ENB = my definition of God.
* total absolute nothing as PSA is impossible thus something must always have been.
*It's only logical to assume that whatever is the eternal necessary aspect of all being would be the thing that produced all else.
ergo: there is rational warrant to believe in ENB which is to say, my concept of God is rationally warranted.
No comments:
Post a Comment