Argument against Naturalism

[afungusamongus]

I have been thinking a lot about how naturalism cannot be true if the universe has a beginning. I have formulated the following argument.

Premise 1.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Whatever has a beginning needs a real cause for its beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a real cause.

Premise 2.

1. For something to be the cause of another thing it must have existed before said thing existed.
2. Therefor the cause of the universe had to exist before the universe existed.

Premise 3.

1. Naturalism is the claim that nothing exist beyond the physical realm.
2. Whatever the cause of the universe is had to exist before the universe existed.
3. Therefore Naturalism is false.

Feel free too discuss.

 

[Perplexity]

Well, this argument isn’t valid so granting its premises wouldn’t thereby commit us to the conclusion.

Big bang cosmology tells us that time didn’t exist before the universe did, so there was no before the universe began.

 

[Katholish]

Your Premise 2, both parts, is incorrect.

Time is a measure of change, and since change is only a property of created things, it does not exist outside of creation. There was nothing “before” the creation of the universe because there was no time before the creation of the universe.

Also, you can have causality with a cause being a cause prior in time.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Big bang cosmology tells us that time didn’t exist before the universe did, so there was no before the universe began.

The fact that there was no time before the Bang does not mean that something cannot come from nothing (see e.g. conservation of energy, 2nd law of thermodynamics), which is why there is an Uncaused Cause. We know that the Cause is uncaused precisely because there was no time before the Bang and hence no need to “cause” the Cause.

Further explanation here

 

[Perplexity]

The fact that there was no time before the Bang does not mean that something cannot come from nothing (see e.g. conservation of energy, 2nd law of thermodynamics), which is why there is an Uncaused Cause. We know that the Cause is uncaused precisely because there was no time before the Bang and hence no need to “cause” the Cause.

Further explanation here

I wasn’t inferring that something can come from nothing because there was no time before the big bang.

Even supposing ex nihil, nihil fit (something I don’t accept), there’s no clear reason to me why the universe needs a cause. Far as I’m concerned, it’s just always been. There doesn’t seem to be any theoretical advantages in adopting a deity as an explanans here.

 

[Shike]

We know that the Cause is uncaused precisely because there was no time before the Bang and hence no need to “cause” the Cause.

I agree with the other things you said in your post and think you are the for the most part correct.

I don’t agree that we know God is uncaused because there was no time before the big bang… not quite. I say this because not all causality is time dependent and there can be an ontological hierarchy of dependence which we could label as causes in the aristotelian sense.

Your statement would seem to imply that God cannot cause the creation of the universe because He is outside time.

 

[Shike]

Even supposing ex nihil, nihil fit (something I don’t accept), there’s no clear reason to me why the universe needs a cause. Far as I’m concerned, it’s just always been. There doesn’t seem to be any theoretical advantages in adopting a deity as an explanans here.

Of course if someone rejects the law of non-contradiction, which is what you do if you reject ex nihil, nihil fit, then one won’t think anything at all requires a cause… That is because life is absurd… and not absurd… at the same time.

The problem with positing that the universe’s existence is a brute fact is that you have all these particular causal chains… everywhere… but if the existence of the universe is a brute fact, then everything in the causal chains also has to be a brute fact.

Check this out:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/can-we-make-sense-of-world.html#more

 

[Perplexity]

Of course if someone rejects the law of non-contradiction, which is what you do if you reject ex nihil, nihil fit, then one won’t think anything at all requires a cause… That is because life is absurd… and not absurd… at the same time.

I don’t think anyone should accept that law.

The problem with positing that the universe’s existence is a brute fact is that you have all these particular causal chains… everywhere… but if the existence of the universe is a brute fact, then everything in the causal chains also has to be a brute fact.

I (and Swinburne etc.) would strongly disagree with you here, we could explain practically any given state of the universe by appeal to previous states and the laws which acted on them to produce the one in question. It’s true there’d be one unexplained state (the initial one), but that in no way implies our other explanations aren’t…explanations. I don’t see a single unexplained state as any worse than God.

Thanks for the link, was that intended to support your claim that “if the existence of the universe is a brute fact, then everything in the causal chains also has to be a brute fact”?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I wasn’t inferring that something can come from nothing because there was no time before the big bang.

Even supposing ex nihil, nihil fit (something I don’t accept), there’s no clear reason to me why the universe needs a cause. Far as I’m concerned, it’s just always been. There doesn’t seem to be any theoretical advantages in adopting a deity as an explanans here.

You are ignoring the cited laws of physics (conservation and thermodynamics). If you want the truth here it takes a multidisciplinary approach that looks to math, physics AND philosophy. Once all the chips are on the table there is no argument against God.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I agree with the other things you said in your post and think you are the for the most part correct.

I don’t agree that we know God is uncaused because there was no time before the big bang… not quite. I say this because not all causality is time dependent and there can be an ontological hierarchy of dependence which we could label as causes in the aristotelian sense.

Your statement would seem to imply that God cannot cause the creation of the universe because He is outside time.

Time is not the only thing that goes into causality, there is also the cause and effect itself. Just because there is no time does not mean there can be no effect, i.e. the Bang. It just means there does not have to be a prior cause, although not that there cannot be one… In the case of the Bang we know there is a cause because there was no energy, mass, space, or time before the singularity and the physical laws dictate that all of that had to come from somewhere, namely God.

Here is the explanation again

 

[Perplexity]

You are ignoring the cited laws of physics (conservation and thermodynamics). If you want the truth here it takes a multidisciplinary approach that looks to math, physics AND philosophy. Once all the chips are on the table there is no argument against God.

You must be privy to something others aren’t 'cause I’ve never heard of what you’re talking about. Philosophy of religion is far more like a balancing scale. There aren’t any knock down arguments, just evidences of different weights. Taking your appeal to physics into account, we’d have to weigh it against the arguments for atheism, and they’re no light weights.

I’m not aware of any major theistic publication utilizing the points you’re referring to.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You must be privy to something others aren’t 'cause I’ve never heard of what you’re talking about. Philosophy of religion is far more like a balancing scale. There aren’t any knock down arguments, just evidences of different weights. Taking your appeal to physics into account, we’d have to weigh it against the arguments for atheism, and they’re no light weights.

I’m not aware of any major theistic publication utilizing the points you’re referring to.

What I am saying is nothing new. Go watch this video. All I am doing is taking what Tim Staples sets forth (a restatement of Aquinas) and fleshing it out with the relevant science.

Atheists love science until we start talking about the cause of the Bang. Then they lose all faith in science and claim thermodynamics and causality no longer exist. Meh.

 

[Shike]

I don’t think anyone should accept that law.

The law of non-contradiction is lesson number 2 for any philosopher (lesson number 1 is humility). Without it communication becomes impossible.

I (and Swinburne etc.) would strongly disagree with you here, we could explain practically any given state of the universe by appeal to previous states and the laws which acted on them to produce the one in question. It’s true there’d be one unexplained state (the initial one), but that in no way implies our other explanations aren’t…explanations. I don’t see a single unexplained state as any worse than God.

It’s not just that the initial state is unexplained but is also in principle unexplainable. I have no problem with an infinite series of states each one explaining the next. What I do have a problem is with instrumental causes ordered per se that end with something in principle unexplainable. The former is acceptable but the latter is a logical contradiction…

But we cannot engage in dialog if you don’t accept lesson number 2.

Thanks for the link, was that intended to support your claim that “if the existence of the universe is a brute fact, then everything in the causal chains also has to be a brute fact”?

Yes, but only with regard to instrumental per se causal chains (which are fundamental to any other more complex causal chains).

 

[Shike]

Time is not the only thing that goes into causality, there is also the cause and effect itself. Just because there is no time does not mean there can be no effect, i.e. the Bang. It just means there does not have to be a prior cause, although not that there cannot be one… In the case of the Bang we know there is a cause because there was no energy, mass, space, or time before the singularity and the physical laws dictate that all of that had to come from somewhere, namely God.

Sorry, I took your statement to imply that timelessness necessitates that there are no causes. Aquinas argues that all instrumental per se causal chains require an ultimate explanation that ends in the philosophico-classico-theistic picture of God–which is a stronger statement than just that there could still be a cause to the universe given that “before” the big bang there was no time, but instead, that there must be upon pain of contradiction.

Also, if the physical laws break down at the origin of the singularity, then it would be better to say that the laws of logic necessitate a cause rather than any physical law. Aquinas does not support such a conclusion from the physical laws of nature as his argument is strictly metaphysical.

All I am doing is taking what Tim Staples sets forth (a restatement of Aquinas) and fleshing it out with the relevant science.

Your emphasis on scientific laws as an integral part to Aquinas’ arguments seems to be opposed to Aquinas’ metaphysical arguments, which makes me think that Tim Staples, a really good Scripture exegete and apologist, might not have interpreted Aquinas correctly in the area of philosophy.

But your source seems to be paywalled so-to-speak so I don’t think I will pursue it at this stage in my life.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Also, if the physical laws break down at the origin of the singularity, then it would be better to say that the laws of logic necessitate a cause rather than any physical law. .

This is a big if. Steven Hawking does not believe that they do. He posits that gravity gave rise to the Big Bang, which of course presupposes that gravity existed before the singularity. (He does not attempt to explain where gravity came from.)

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I have been thinking a lot about how naturalism cannot be true if the universe has a beginning. I have formulated the following argument.

Premise 1.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Whatever has a beginning needs a real cause for its beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a real cause.

Premise 2.

1. For something to be the cause of another thing it must have existed before said thing existed.
2. Therefor the cause of the universe had to exist before the universe existed.

Premise 3.

1. Naturalism is the claim that nothing exist beyond the physical realm.
2. Whatever the cause of the universe is had to exist before the universe existed.
3. Therefore Naturalism is false.

Feel free too discuss.

Naturalism is a misconception. There is a natural order that is derived from the universe. The cause of the universe is also the cause of this natural order. When people think of naturalism they often misconstrue the interpretation of the universe, leaving out the cause, which we call God for all purposes. If we interpret a naturalism that is inclusive with the cause, namely God, then we arrive at the correct natural order (True Nature).

 

[Perplexity]

The law of non-contradiction is lesson number 2 for any philosopher (lesson number 1 is humility). Without it communication becomes impossible.

This just simply isn’t the case. Any philosophy major will presumably take courses in logic and metaphysics.

In logic, he’ll learn of the great non-classical logics which refuse to non-contradiction membership among their set of axioms (dialethic logics). In metaphysics, he’ll learn of the great anti-realists who reject that interpretation of the laws of classical logic given by a realist metaphysics.

In any case, I suspect you’re not referring to the logical law of non-contradiction (which bears no interesting metaphysical consequences per se); but, rather the interpretation of that law your realist metaphysic demands of you. Understood as such, I wouldn’t say I think everyone should reject it.

It’s not just that the initial state is unexplained but is also in principle unexplainable. I have no problem with an infinite series of states each one explaining the next. What I do have a problem is with instrumental causes ordered per se that end with something in principle unexplainable. The former is acceptable but the latter is a logical contradiction…

There are different kinds of contradictions, I think it’s fairly easy to show that no logical contradiction is involved here. But, I’ve never committed to a series of instrumental causes ordered per se. I just said whatever the series of causes is, I think its initial point is unexplained. You’ll have to flesh out what’s involved in a series of ‘instrumental causes ordered per se’.

 

[Shike]

This is a big if. Steven Hawking does not believe that they do. He posits that gravity gave rise to the Big Bang, which of course presupposes that gravity existed before the singularity. (He does not attempt to explain where gravity came from.)

My point is that your argument is not a demonstration in the sense that Aquinas’ argument is.

 

[Shike]

This just simply isn’t the case. Any philosophy major will presumably take courses in logic and metaphysics.

In logic, he’ll learn of the great non-classical logics which refuse to non-contradiction membership among their set of axioms (dialethic logics). In metaphysics, he’ll learn of the great anti-realists who reject that interpretation of the laws of classical logic given by a realist metaphysics.

I call BS. The way any anti-realist (or anyone for that matter) argues for their position employs the law of non-contradiction and you know it.

In any case, I suspect you’re not referring to the logical law of non-contradiction (which bears no interesting metaphysical consequences per se); but, rather the interpretation of that law your realist metaphysic demands of you. Understood as such, I wouldn’t say I think everyone should reject it.

Nope, I am talking about the logical law of non-contradiction.

There are different kinds of contradictions, I think it’s fairly easy to show that no logical contradiction is involved here.

The meanings of the words (which are not merely empty musings) nothing and something are set in exact opposition to each other–standard sentential logic shows as much with quantifiers. Ergo, to have both at the same time in the same respect, ect. is nothing other than a logical contradiction… whatever you want to make out of the metaphysics of the situation.

But, I’ve never committed to a series of instrumental causes ordered per se. I just said whatever the series of causes is, I think its initial point is unexplained. You’ll have to flesh out what’s involved in a series of ‘instrumental causes ordered per se’.

You did not merely say the initial point is unexplained… you either said that in principle there is no explanation or that it is possible that there is no explanation–take either one, it all leads to the same place.

If you really want to learn more I can point you to sources. I don’t want to engage much in this conversation because of your position on the law of non-contradiction.

Good luck!

ciao,
Michael

 

[Perplexity]

I call BS. The way any anti-realist (or anyone for that matter) argues for their position employs the law of non-contradiction and you know it.

Yeah, so the “law” of non-contradiction is just an axiom of certain languages. We only use it if we’re speaking those languages, which we needn’t do. (that’s really all a logic is: a language)

So, I’ll call your BS and raise you a ‘do some homework’:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

Read also Van Inwagen’s intro to metaphysics where he’ll tell you there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in philosophy. Take a test in History or Math (etc.) and your answers can be either true or false. There’s nothing like that in philosophy. Of course, if you’re doing history of philosophy, or trying to describe a philosophical position your answers may be true or false, but that’s not ‘philosophy’ per se.

The meanings of the words (which are not merely empty musings) nothing and something are set in exact opposition to each other–standard sentential logic shows as much with quantifiers. Ergo, to have both at the same time in the same respect, ect. is nothing other than a logical contradiction… whatever you want to make out of the metaphysics of the situation.

That’s nice, but how does this relate to whether saying a state of the universe is ‘in principle’ unexplainable amounts to a logical contradiction?

You did not merely say the initial point is unexplained… you either said that in principle there is no explanation or that it is possible that there is no explanation–take either one, it all leads to the same place.

I think you mean one of those disjuncts is an implication of what I said. I’ll opt for the former since it entails the latter by any normal modal logic.