A Brief Response to Quentin Smith and his article, "Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause."
A Brief Synopsis:
Mr. Smith suggests in his article that the arguments proposed by theists to demonstrate the logical necessity of a divine cause of the origins of the universe as we know it are based on a weak understanding of what is meant by the word 'cause.' After a fairly thorough discussion of different philosophical definitions of the word 'cause,' Mr. Smith proceeds to point out that a divine origination of the universe is logically impossible based on these definitions. Ultimately he concedes that his argument "is at best a 'weak inductive argument,'" except for the 'crucial fact' that "God's willing that the big bang occurs is a logically sufficient condition of the big bang." In such a case, according to a logical proposition that he provides regarding such matters, God cannot then be the cause of the origins of the universe. He thus concludes that all arguments for a divine cause are actually arguments against.
A Brief Rebuttal:
Mr. Smith certainly deserves a full analysis and full rebuttal of his argument. His article certainly provides ample evidence of his research and depth of logical reasoning. Unfortunately, he will not get that attention from me, for the simple reasons that we all must choose wisely where we invest our time. However, there are some basic flaws in Mr. Smith's arguments, and they aren't so much in his logical deductions as in his premises.
There are two basic flaws: One, he begins the premise that there was a Big Bang. Secondly, his definitions of a cause are all definitions that are rooted firmly within the natural order. It is clear to see that if a 'cause' requires certain natural and physical relationships than God, who is supernatural and spiritual, cannot be the 'cause' of the universe!
Mr. Smith traces the origins of the universe to an initial Big Bang, and thus proposes the question of a divine cause in that light. However, arguments regarding this matter began centuries before any notion of the Big Bang was made. The basic concepts of the Big Bang begin with an atheistic supposition that the natural is all that there is, and that there aren't competing theories and interpretations of astronomical evidences. The Big Bang, originating from some initial position (the Cosmic Egg, if you like) occurs within the natural universe. Based on his basic premise of the Big Bang Cosmogony it is more than reasonable to conclude, perhaps, that a divine cause is logically impossible. But that is because the premise has already ruled it out.
A theistic reply to his argument in this matter would not be to take Mr. Smith to task for his logic and reasoning, but to point out that the real issue is that scientific experiments have pointed out and fairly demonstrated that certain laws of the universe, such as, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest," are defied by the Big Bang. The Cosmic Egg, according to modern cosmogony, was at rest. What set it in motion? Can an object set itself in motion? An appeal to modern physics here (for example Quantum Physics) only makes the matter worse, for the definitions of 'causality' that Smith provides are classical (Newtonian). He will have to develop definitions of causality that take into account singularities of science and come back to us. Hume could not have perceived a situation where all known rules are off!
The basic objections to returning again and again to the Big Bang for the origin of the universe then, is that it runs into the following two problems: either A. The Cosmic Egg was at rest. The proper question is "What set it in motion?" If standard concepts of logic and physics are to be employed in this argument, the only logical answer is that something had to have set it in motion and that something had to be outside of it. But again, using the Big Bang cosmogony is already implying that a strict naturalism is true to life. And finally, B. The Cosmic Egg was at rest, and known physical laws did not yet exist because it was a singularity. Unfortunately, if this is indeed true, then known uses of logic and reason are of no use to this question, for they can't shed any light on a situation (the Cosmic Egg Singularity) that logically won't allow them! If I were Mr. Smith, I would concentrate on responding to objection A., because objection B., will logically require logical contradictions and fallacies (or perhaps a better word, inadequacies) to be employed.
The Second main objection is that the definitions that Mr. Smith works with are rooted within the natural order. This ties in with the discussion above. By defining 'causality' in natural terms, it is not difficult at all to demonstrate that the supernatural cannot 'cause' anything. Of course, Smith accepts, even explicitly states, that this his definitions lead him to "at best, 'a weak inductive argument.'" He is merely using the best definitions that he can find. However, his definitions are all regarding how a natural event can cause another natural event, and he really needs to find out how supernatural events 'cause' natural events. He does deal with this issue, but I think he grossly misses the point. He rejects objections to his argument that many people would not have made in the first place. The nearest analogy we can turn to is our own mind and how humans will, create, and cause, new things to exist- within their mind.
When a person pictures in his mind, say, a house, that house exists within his mind. Certainly, the house isn't fit for him to live in, but any little people he continues to picture in his mind would find it habitable enough! They exist, as thoughts within his mind; they aren't as real (or as great) as the person who 'created' them, but they are real. Now as 'the house' is to the person, so is 'the universe' to God. Mr. Smith needs to think in these terms in order to come up with some definitions of causality that will work for us. In his article, he points out that God cannot be omnipotent if God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift. But you can see that a person, while able to imagine anything into existence, also cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, because of the actual nature of 'supernatural' creation. What is in my mind will not ever (logically) be able to leave my mind, though I may represent it in other ways. Therefore, such questions are just absurdities, and Mr. Smith does not take them into account fully.
It could be because he begins with a premise that leans heavily against the supernatural in the first place...
In conclusion, I see no reason to challenge the remainder of his article, because most of it does logically follow from his initial premises. "An argument is only as good as its presuppositions." The Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, wrought with its own difficulties. It originates from that singularity, the Cosmic Egg, where all bets are off. Logic cannot aid us regarding the inner workings of a singularity. What about that ultimate singularity which we are all seeking either to prove, deny, refute, demonstrate, or love? A New Logic will be needed to comprehend such matters, and proper presuppositions will go a long way to a proper discussion of 'divine causality.'
Reply: sntjohnny@aol.com
copyright December 11, 1997
Anthony Horvath
all rights reserved.