Counter-Apologetics Series Part IV: First Cause
By Tom Beasley on February 8, 2011
In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the WHOLE, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.
- David Hume
The First Cause argument, sometimes known as the ‘cosmological argument’ or ‘uncaused cause’, is an argument for the existence of God; the reason it is called first cause will be evident in a moment from seeing the argument. The argument has been advanced since Ancient Greece, and famously by Thomas Aquinas. There are a few variations of the argument, but they mostly boil down to two different versions. There is a more traditional version, and a version that has come about from a better understanding of our universe. Both below are from the Wikipedia entry:
Traditional version:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
William Lane Craig version:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
The traditional version has a number of problems. The problems with the premises of (2) and (3) are mostly that they are unfounded. The arguments against these are extensive and lengthy and one should check more about them and the Wikipedia article is a good place to start.
The William Lane Craig version, which is much clearer and used more frequently by modern apologists or in casual conversation is what I want to focus on. Addressing the points in this argument will also refute the traditional argument. If someone uses an argument that is much simpler and easier to refute, that instead of saying ‘whatever begins’ they say ‘everything has a beginning’ then there is the problem of what created God, creating an issue of ‘special pleading’.
As to the Craig argument, the first premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause is itself a problematic premise. This is not certain, but even if we grant that the premise is true, there are still more significant problems with the argument. The premise that the “universe began to exist” is also problematic. The universe might have always existed in some form or another. But none of this is the most important point.
The most important problem with this argument is that even if the argument follows that there is a first cause, or something that causes something but itself was not caused, why not call it ‘the big bang’ or ‘reality’ or ‘existence’? If you are calling it ‘God’ then the only properties ascribed to it is that it is the first cause. This argument does not, even if it followed, establish any particular God of any religion, much less a personal God. This is the same problem that one gets into when in an argument someone says they believe in God and that God is the universe. The person is simply calling the universe God. This establishes nothing other than using a different word to signify something else. When theologians and religious apologists use this argument, they do not simply mean God is X, they mean God is a X AND a personal God, who hears my prayers, who performs miracles, who inspired the Bible/Qu’ran/et al., who created heaven and hell, who judges us when we die, etc. Christians, or other religions, often attest that now that they have established that God exists, they just need to show which one and Jesus was resurrected and we have the Bible as proof of which God is the first cause. All religions claim to have similar proof (scriptures and historical claims) and these are separate arguments that I will address later.
A theist might say, “okay, so then how did the universe come about or why? Nothing comes from nothing.” These are separate arguments that I will address in later segments. The first question is addressed party in Part 1 of my series, also it is a kind of “God of the gaps.” I will also address “nothing comes from nothing” claim in a later article. Nonetheless, the first cause argument is flawed, and even granting that it were true lends no credibility to any particular God and does nothing more than merely renaming a word that we would use for a first cause.
For further reading:
Check out the rest of the series here.