Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Actually, it's a GOOD ARGUMENT. Magarshak, Gregory Dec 16, 2009
But we do find something interesting in considering this line of reasoning. Namely that there must be SOME THING that has no cause. Either it is within the universe we can observe, or the universe we can infer from the observed universe and a scientific model.

Now, scientific models are nothing more than hypotheses that produce necessary predictions that can be tested experimentally or evaluated
logically. There may be nothing logically wrong with the existence of an uncaused effect in our universe. Indeed, many events in quantum theory seem to be of this nature.

Either way, I don't see how the existence of an uncaused event within the observable or inferred universe, is any more or less likely than the existence of an uncaused creator of the universe, who may be outside our ability to infer anything about this creator.

At the very least, the Kalam argument shows that there is very likely some sort of uncaused thing. Even if we consider time as an emergent
property of our universe, we have to admit there is either an infinite progression of time -> big bang, or a finite sequence of time units (say, no larger than planck time) in which case there is a FIRST UNIT OF TIME. And the question is, how did that first unit of time come about?

So to be put more accurately, either there is an infinite progression of time units (it seems unlikely that they would get infinitely shorter and converge to something) or there is an UNCAUSED THING.

If there is an uncaused thing, as we said it could be a creator, or it could be a mundane thing like an infinitely existing (e.g. non-expanding) universe, which gave rise to ours through the creation of a new black hole
or something.

Either way, it seems that we can logically deduce that if we go back far enough, there was a "time" when there were only UNCAUSED THINGS. This happens after all the finite chains of causation have been exhausted.

If these uncaused things were completely devoid of intelligence, it seems strange that our universe began at all, if the uncaused things
existed for an infinite amount of time. So either they existed for a finite amount of time, or they had to have some sort of "infinite" intelligence to decide when to create this universe (by that I mean, cause the universe to come into existence). Unless of course we are a non-special universe among
infinitely many.

The possibility that the uncaused things were finite in time seems problematic, as we can once again ask about the "first unit" of time.

Thus we are left with: either there really are infinite chains of causes, OR there is an infinitely intelligent first cause, OR we are a
non-special universe among infinitely many. Either way, something must be infinite, and that something can be considered "God" :)
Related Articles: Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise