No doubt my case (see previous post) for the cosmological argument is found wanting. And that was my intent, for it was essentially Russell’s critique. But in fairness, those claiming an argument founded on reasons (reasons, say, for the beginning of the universe or for it being caused) must support their claims. Russell deserves a response.
Russell hits on the correct two prongs of the Kalam cosmological argument: whether the universe began, and, if it did, whether that beginning need be caused. Contrary to assertion, I think there is reason to affirm both.
First, there is reason to think that if the universe began, its beginning was caused. To begin, the idea seems intuitive, and we should believe our intuitions if there is no reason to doubt them. The plausibility of this premise is further revealed by considering the absurdity of its negation, the claim that some things could being without a cause. Atheistic philosopher Kai Nielsen gives an illustration: Imagine you and a friend are enjoying a walk in the woods. Suddenly, you both hear a loud ‘BANG!’ You turn to your friend and say “what caused that bang? He replies, “O, nothing.” Such an answer would be utterly dissatisfying. Since it would not make to say that (X) began to exist without cause but was generated/produced/came from (Y), the one who holds that things can begin to exist without cause holds that something can come from nothing. But if there is actually nothing, then there isn’t even the potential for the universe to begin. But how can something be actual without first being possible? Lastly, suppose that things could come into being without cause—why doesn’t anything and everything pop into existence at any time? It would be hard to propose some regulatory truth without positing necessary or sufficient condition, and thereby bordering cause.*
Second, there are reasons to think that the world has not always existed, and there are reasons to suppose it began. One could begin with the evidence of science. Oxford’s Sir Anthony Kenny writes, “A proponent of the big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Red Shift, Cosmic Background radiation, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity all offer support to the idea of a universe with a beginning. But, “quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow,” there are good rational reasons to believe that the universe began. Again, consider the contradictory. If the universe had existed for eternity past, what would that mean of our present existence? It would imply that a span of infinite breadth, the span of all the history prior to the present, had been traversed. It is obvious that one could never count up to infinity—there is simply always another number to count. But why suppose the task is achievable simply by counting down from infinity rather than up to it? Likewise, why think that, in a beginningless universe, one could arrive at the present simply because we count down from infinity past?
More has and could be said on this, thought for now I want to emphasize that there are reasons, or at least potential reason for why the universe began a finite time ago. And anyone who would hold that there need not be a first cause because the universe did not begin must be prepared to explain away the putative reasons to the contrary, and that includes Bertrand Russell.*
*I am clearly dependent on the work of William L. Craig. For more detail on these arguments, see his article, "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe"
No comments:
Post a Comment