Wednesday, May 21, 2008

God as First Cause

Establishing God as the instigator of the Big Bang, and thus, the Universe, requires an inductive approach. The evidence may indicate the Universe had a beginning but not what caused it. And, positing God as the instigator must also address his origin.

In other words, what caused God?

The bottom line is that a thing that exists either:

a. had a beginning and is caused, or
b. has always existed and is uncaused

The inductive approach starts with the conclusion from the Cosmological argument that the Universe had a beginning. However, the cause of the Universe can not be another thing that had a beginning because that would lead to an infinite number of causes.

Therefore, reason requires a First Cause that is uncreated and eternal (exists outside of time). Keep in mind that the Cosmological argument doesn't state “every thing that exists has a cause”, but rather, "everything that begins to exist has a cause”.

Since the First Cause never began to exist, it does not require a cause. Thus, no one created the First Cause - it has always existed. This means the First Cause is:

1. self-existent
2. exists outside of time
3. inconceivably powerful to birth the Universe

Since, these qualities are the same qualities theists attribute to God, therefore, the First Cause is God.

1 Comments:

At June 2, 2007 at 12:37 PM , Blogger duane voth said...

Logically there are two other options for the "bottom line":

c. had a beginning and is uncaused
d. has always existed and is caused

These may seem to be ridiculous alternatives but argumentatively so is (b) always existed and is caused. This is because we have no documentation for anything that fits (b) and so it is as imaginary as (c) something that pops into existence spontaneously, or (d) the mechanism for duplication in a timeless arena (whatever that is).

With (c) and (d) present (b) is nolonger our defacto answer as we must then argue which thing (via c or d) caused our universe.

I think we need to be careful about defining systems of thought with a finite solution set and then setting out to prove all but one option are bogus. Perhaps this means that I an unwilling to entertain inductive reasoning about God and that I'm raising the bar to insist on a deductive proof. Its just that with something as important as our reason for existence I'm unwilling to let it rest on a wobbly foundation. For those that don't know me I have some ideas about all this at my ARS site. I don't offer a proof of God, but instead offer arguments for figuring out what God is and isn't and try to leave conclusions up to my readers. Critique is more than welcome.

Roy, is this a good place to discuss whether inductive reasoning is appropriate for God existence proofs?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home