I would like now to put on my philosophical demeanor and defend the first premise from common objections. Two are mainstream and one isn't as popular and one is recent. The first objection comes from the law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So if energy cannot be created the universe which has energy can not be created so it is eternal and never began to exist. This is the objection and it also implies that nothing begins to exist! As most people say. Well first off whoever championed this objection has to go to a mental clinic. This is really bad ontology. "If such a conclusion is not evidently absurd, reflect I have essential properties, properties without which I would seize to exist. For example it is essential for me to be human, but the atoms prior to my conception were not a human being therefore they were not I."- Dr. William Lane Craig. This objections tries to confuses who we are with what were made of. To give a analogy I have all the parts to a honda accord in my house. Does the honda accord exist yet? No! It has not yet been built. If we were to accept this conclusion we would have to accept absurd conclusions. Such as, I existed when dinosaurs were around. I think we can also say that this objection goes flying right in the face of our common sense notions.
The second objections comes from quatum realm. In the quatum realm there is exist virtual particles that seem to come into being uncaused out of nothing. So the first premise is invalid. First of all these virtual particles exist in a sea of fluctuating energy. The virtual particles use this energy to bring themselves into existence for a moment then the energy returns into the vacuum. So these virtual particles do have a cause. They are caused by the vacuum. Second this objection can also be answered by responded by saying this is just one view of quatum mechanics. Third, according to the indeterminacy principle we do not know if there is a cause of the particles. So if we don't know something we cannot say that they have no cause.
The next objection is a little bit harder. That the first premise begs the question because it only postulate a cause like God. Which the argument is trying to prove. Now this objection is weak to me. Begging the question means to include your conclusion in one of your premises. Now if you look at the first premise:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Do you see God in there? Not really. So how is it begging the question. Also the argument does not attempt to prove God exist but it proves that the universe has a cause. The cause is God and this comes from doing a systematic analysis of the conclusion of the argument. So it does not beg the question.
The final objection is more complex but I will simplify it. The first premise commits the fallacy of equivocation. That means that you make your premise mean something else than what it really is. According to this objection the first premise equivocates whatever begins to exist with a cause. Whatever begins to exist means coming into existence from something that already exists. And that whatever begins to exist from creations ex nihilo means coming into existence from nothing. So we have two meanings of beginning to exist. So the first premise equivocates the first meaning instead of the later. Since the universe came into existence from nothing it does not mean it has a cause because whatever begins to exist means to come into existence from something that already exists. Since we have creation ex nihilo the first premise is invalid. Now re-read that a few times if you don't understand it. Now there is a simple answer to the objection. Whatever begins to exist means that whatever brings about or produces an effect. So the charge of equivocation is groundless. Whether it came into being from something else or ex nihilo is no problem at all.
So the first premise seems to be sound.
Next time I will write about the second premise and give two philosophical arguments and scientific argument answer some objections.
No comments:
Post a Comment