The kalam cosmological argument (KCA) for God’s existence goes as follows:
(1) Anything that begins to exist requires a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Thus, the universe requires a cause
Additional reasoning leads us to conclude that the cause of the universe is God. Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material. Furthermore, whatever caused our orderly universe to come into being a finite time ago must be immensely powerful, intelligent, conscious, and hence personal. These are apt descriptions of a being theists have long identified as God.
Some seek to undermine this causal argument for God’s existence by denying the first premise. They point to quantum mechanics and virtual particles as evidence that there are exceptions to the causal principle.
In regards to quantum mechanics, an appeal is made to Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle. This principle holds that one cannot accurately determine with precision both the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. If you measure its momentum, its position changes. If you measure its position, its momentum changes. Thus, it is impossible to accurately predict the future motion of an electron. While this is a physically accurate description of what we observe on the quantum level, some have improperly understood this to mean that the momentum of electrons is uncaused. This is an unjustified use of science. Heisenberg’s principle pertains to predictability (of the location and momentum of subatomic particles), not causality. “The mere fact that we can’t predict something doesn’t mean that something has no cause.”[1]
What about virtual particles? The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy. Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle allows for pairs of virtual particles to come into existence for a fleeting moment before being subsumed back into the vacuum. Detractors of the kalam argument point to these virtual particles as examples of entities that come into being without a cause. But this conclusion is unjustified given the evidence. While we may not be able to observe the cause, that does not mean there is no cause. Given our uniform experience of cause and effect, it is more likely to conclude that a cause exists that we have yet to detect than it is to conclude there is no cause. Indeed, the best explanation may be that virtual particles are caused by the quantum vacuum from which they originate.
For some, such explanations will not be sufficient. Until a cause for particle pair production can be observed or detected, they will maintain that it is more reasonable to conclude that such events are uncaused. This brings me to what I consider the ultimate rebuttal to scientific challenges to the first premise: science cannot, in principle, ever identify an uncaused effect, and thus it is never reasonable to conclude on the basis of science that something exists for which there is no cause. Let me explain.
Science contributes to our knowledge of reality by making observations about physical things. If they are able to directly or indirectly observe some X, then we have good grounds for adding X to our ontology. For example, when scientists detect a new particle such as the neutrino, we add neutrinos to our list of things that exist. While science can identify what exists by what it observes, science cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe. If science cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe, then the failure to observe a cause for particle pair production does not entail the absence of a cause.
Imagine for a moment that a scientist is barbequing some steaks in his backyard. While he is cooking, a piece of chicken suddenly appears on the grill. Strangely enough, it only appears for a brief moment before disappearing again. This happens multiple times. Quickly, the scientist grabs his instruments in hopes of detecting what is causing the chicken to appear on his grill. Despite all attempts to detect the cause, however, he finds nothing. Does this mean there is no cause? No, it just means he has failed to detect the presence of a cause. Perhaps the cause is too small or operates too quickly to be detected by his instruments. While he cannot rule out the possibility that the chicken’s appearance was uncaused, as a scientist he knows his failure to detect a cause is not proof that there is no cause. Absence of evidence for a causal entity is not evidence for the absence of a causal entity.
While the scientist can rightly claim he does not observe a cause for the chicken’s appearance on his grill, he cannot claim science has proven there is no cause. Likewise, while scientists do not detect a cause for the appearance of virtual particles in the vacuum, the absence of evidence for a cause is not itself evidence for the absence of a cause. It is beyond the scope of the scientific method to make conclusions about what does not exist. If there is such a thing as an uncaused entity, it would be impossible to identify it scientifically because science is based on observation and induction. It is impossible to observe the absence of something, and thus it is impossible to discover an uncaused entity by scientific methods. If uncaused entities exist, they must be identified philosophically, not empirically/scientifically.
[1]Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 87.
March 11, 2011 at 5:10 am
If uncaused things can only be identified philosphically, then caused things can only be identified philosophically. So you can’t appeal to our knowledge to argue that things have causes, but then reject knowledge that is unhelpful.
If our experience shows that some things appear to have causes but others do not, it might be that our perceptions are wrong and in fact all things have causes or no things have causes. But the first part of KLA requires our perception to be that all things have a cause, while carving out an exception for the thing you want to posit exists: “All things that are not unicorns have a cause” if you wish to argue that unicorns are the first cause.
BTW, are you aware that Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” addresses all the arguments you make on this blog and more?
March 11, 2011 at 11:14 am
Arthur,
While I would agree that philosophy can identify causes as well, you are misapplying my logic to say this would mean science cannot identify causes. Science can identify causes whenever those causes are empirically detectable. The reason I say only philosophy is capable of identifying an uncaused entity/effect is because science cannot empirically detect the absence of a thing. And lest there be an confusion, let me state this with precision: scientists can say that following an empirical investigation no cause was detected, but they cannot say that following an empirical investigation they have detected the absence of a cause. As I said in the post, science cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe.
You suggested that “if our experience shows that some things appear to have causes but others do not, it might be that our perceptions are wrong and in fact all things have causes or no things have causes.” I don’t see how that follows. If this were truly the case, why not just conclude that some things have causes while others do not?
But I don’t think this is what our experience shows. Our experience with causation is uniform: effects have causes. In most cases, we know what the causes are. In some cases we do not know what the cause is, but we presume there is one. Why? Because we have a rational intuition that contingent beings require causes to come into being. That’s why no one ever fears that a horse will pop into existence in the midst of their house while they are at work. Indeed, science requires that one presuppose the universality of the law of causation. Without it, science is sunk. Scientists are always looking for the causes of the effects they observe in the natural world. The presupposition that there must be a cause for these effects has led to the discovery of a host of causes that were once unknown to us.
Tbc…
March 11, 2011 at 11:14 am
Continued….
You wrote, “But the first part of KLA requires our perception to be that all things have a cause, while carving out an exception for the thing you want to posit exists.” I’m nearly certain you have made this charge before, and I answered it. The 1st premise of the KCA does not posit that everything requires a cause. It only posits that contingent beings (things which begin to exist) require a cause. So there is no exception being carved out for God. God, if He exists, is eternal and necessary, and thus uncaused by definition. So this is not some ad hoc exception like your unicorn example would be.
I have not read Dawkins’ book, but I have read several critiques of it and listened to several lectures of those who were critical of it. In that course, I have read/heard excerpts from the book in which he tries to answer some of these arguments, and frankly, he missed the boat by a mile. He either misconstrued the arguments, responded to tangents rather than the heart, and other silly responses. There’s a reason why even fellow atheists have expressed publically their embarrassment of his work in this area.
Jason
March 12, 2011 at 7:51 am
Jason,
Dawkins’ book is an acclaimed multi-million selling bestseller, on point with what you post about. Why wouldn’t you want to read and respond to his writings directly? Shouldn’t you be concerned that the critiques and lectures you’ve heard are quite wrong, and are presenting only strawmen? I’d think you’d want to read both sides of an issue, rather than one side and that same side’s presentation and critique of the other side.
Arthur
March 12, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Arthur,
I hope you will respond to my other points, rather than just about Dawkins.
As for Dawkins book, let me say a few more things. First, I cannot read every book published on the topic. There’s too many, and I don’t have the time. I am only able to read about 10 books per year, so I am rather picky about what I read (since I have 100s I would like to read). I try to read books that will further my knowledge on a variety of topics, rather than books written by critics. That’s not to say I don’t interact with the critics. I do. I spend a lot of time reading online sources.
Secondly, if you really want me to read Dawkins’ book, and you are willing to buy it for me, I’ll read it. You can purchase it from my wish list and it will be mailed directly to me.
Thirdly, I grant you that Dawkins’ books is something to be reckoned with–not because I think it presents good arguments per se, but because of its popularity. But there are many people more able than myself who have already done so. There have been books such as McGrath’s “Dawkins Delusion” dedicated to answering Dawkins, as well as a spate of other books and articles dedicated to debunking his arguments along with the other new atheists. There are so many responses that I have not even had a chance to read them all. But of those I have read and heard, they are not just summarizing Dawkins’ arguments, but quoting from his book and then responding. So I don’t have reason to believe the responders are constructing straw men.
Fourthly, if you have read Dawkins’ book, and you want to raise his objections on this blog, I will be happy to respond to them. I can do so on this string, or better yet, start a new blog post to deal with each objection.
Jason
March 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Jason,
I read another post that perhaps makes the point better than my unicorn example:
1) Every sentient being has a cause.
2) God is a sentient being.
3) Therefore, God has a cause.
The point is that the KCA relies upon our observational knowledge for its first premise. But as with this alternate version, we know that everything has a cause (sentient or otherwise). We can word the premise to carve out an exception (uncaused beings, unicorns, etc) but there’s no legitimate reason to do so. In our experience, there are absolutely no exceptions in our observations – we simply see everything having a cause. That doesn’t mean that there cannot be uncaused beings or unicorns, but their existence cannot be taken as a given from our experience.
I understand that you cannot read everything available. Dawkins’ book isn’t free. But I would read the wikipedia entries on specified complexity and irreducible complexity if I were you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Are you aware, for example, that Darwinian evolution is able to produce irreducible complexity, so it wouldn’t pose a problem for evolution? And the wiki states, “Dembski’s critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create.”
Explaining a point a tried to make earlier:
“Another criticism refers to the problem of ‘arbitrary but specific outcomes.’ For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10 to the 300th power. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10 to the 300th power, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski’s universal probability bound of one in 10 to the 150th power. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that ‘a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact.’”
Arthur
March 15, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Arthur,
I wanted to say something more about Dawkins’ arguments and other atheists arguments. In addition to the sources I already mentioned for my awareness of atheistic objections, I am also an avid listener of Christian-atheist debates. I have listened to most of the heavy-hitters debate this topic, and I’ve heard their responses to these arguments. I haven’t been impressed with the quality of their rebuttals. They either reply to straw men, engage in ad hominems, resort to a science-of-the-gaps, or think that merely posing an alternative explanation undermines warrant for believing God to be the best explanation.
Jason
March 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Arthur,
This argument is valid, but not sound because premise 1 is false. It does not follow that just because every sentient being we are familiar with in the natural world has a cause, that every sentient being has a cause. If it is logically possible that a sentient being exists which transcends physical reality (and I know of no argument to demonstrate that it is logically impossible), that sentient being would have to be uncaused since it transcends time, and eternal beings are uncaused beings. So premise 1 fails because it is too broad.
This same problem plagues the way you have construed premise 1 of the kalam argument in the past: as “everything that exists has a cause.” Both premises are too broad, and more importantly, both ignore the key issue that determines whether something requires a cause: contingency vs. necessity. Causation is only required for contingent entities, not necessary entities. Necessary entities such as abstract objects (e.g. numbers, God)—if they exist—are uncaused by definition. All other attributes you might want to name–sentience, color, weight, geography, etc.—are superfluous to the question of causality.
I disagree that the KCA relies on observational knowledge for its first premise. Our experience supports it, but the deeper support comes from our metaphysical intuition that something only comes from something, caused by something else. We have a metaphysical intuition that potentiality only becomes actuality when something acts on the potentiality to make it an actuality. That intuition explains why, when the lights turn on when no one is home, we don’t just shrug our shoulders and say, “That was weird. The lights just turned themselves on without a cause.”
Why don’t you summarize the arguments from those entries for me, and we can go from there. I have enough stuff to read.
You say evolution can produce irreducible complexity, but you don’t explain how. And neither do the scientists. Oh sure, they offer conceptual stories about how it could happen, but they don’t spell out how those stories work in the actual world of biology (the chemical roadmap), the probability that the number of changes required could be achieved within the timeframe required, etc. Storytelling is not enough.
As for your last quote, this only concerns complexity, not specified complexity. It’s one thing to say any one string of coins is just as improbable as another, but it’s quite another to specify in advance that the string should be A,B,C,D….all the way to 10 to the 30th power, and that exact sequence come up. People who make such arguments confuse Shannon information with functional information. Shannon information is not a big deal and requires no explanation. Functional information does, however, because in addition to be complex/improbable, it is also specified to an independent pattern that has functional significance.
Jason
March 17, 2011 at 7:16 am
[...] an earlier post I argued that the nature of science is such that it cannot demonstrate an entity/event to be [...]
April 9, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Good stuff Jason!!
May 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm
[...] the fact that science could never, in principle, demonstrate that something is uncaused, what are we to make of this claim? Edward [...]
July 17, 2012 at 11:09 am
[...] He can’t appeal to scientific evidence because the methods of science make it impossible to identify uncaused entities, and there are no physics of non-being. He can’t appeal to logic either [...]
January 4, 2013 at 11:33 am
[...] In regards to quantum mechanics, an appeal is made to Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle which holds that one cannot accurately determine with precision both the position and momentum of an electron simultaneously. If you measure its momentum, its position changes; if you measure its position, its momentum changes. This makes it impossible to accurately predict the future motion of an electron. While this is a physically accurate description of what we observe on the quantum level, some have improperly understood this to mean that the momentum of electrons is uncaused. This is an unjustified use of science. Heisenberg’s principle pertains to predictability (of the location and momentum of subatomic particles), not causality. “The mere fact that we can’t predict something doesn’t mean that something has no cause.”[1] [...]