Matt also has a strong tendency of treating atheism as if it is a religion that teaches doctrines opposed to Christianity such as evolution, big bang cosmology, etc. While it may be true that a good majority of atheists hold to these doctrines, it is not true that atheism is defined as a system of belief that includes these things. As stated above, it is merely a lack of belief in a god, nothing more, nothing less. With that said, when Matt accuses atheism of not being able to provide answers to issues such as cosmology he is presupposing that atheism is even suppose to answer such questions. It is not. Does Matt think that atheism is selling something such as concepts or ideas in the way that religion sells its nonsense? Atheism is not selling anything, rather, we are not buying into what religion is selling. That is what atheism is.
Matt has a few pet arguments which he keeps in his immediate arsenal and uses heavily in debates. These arguments are the cosmological argument for the existence of God, the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), and the argument from morality. In this post I will focus on his cosmological argument. One thing that I personally enjoy about deconstructing Matt's argument online as opposed to live verbal debate is that he tends to accuse his opponents of misrepresenting what he says. In this case, I'm going to be posting from his website and addressing it point by point to where there's no room for any misrepresentation. Let's begin.
As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.
Matt seems to be of the idea that if someone does not have all the answers, especially to issues regarding origins, then their position is bankrupt. Matt elsewhere shows irritation to the alleged arrogance and pride that he sees from atheists but when an atheist humbly states, "I don't know" as opposed to adhering to some dogma, then they are now bankrupt.
Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?
Of course Matt dodges the evolution issue. I'm sure he is aware of the fact that there is mountains of evidence demonstrating that it is a fact. Matt is seemingly unaware of the fact that evolution does partially refute theistic cosmology. If evolution is true, then the Genesis account is clearly false. Though theistic evolutionists try to spiritualize Genesis, people like Matt who hold to a literal interpretation of it cannot use the Bible as a frame of reference to support the idea of a god creating the universe.
Not only that, but the fact of evolution lends credence to the idea that our universe probably was not designed because of the chaotic nature of our planet as well as flaws in evolutionary design of species. So while evolution does not deal directly with cosmology, it does indirectly.
Matt's second point, that whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else is fallacious. He is applying the laws of cause and effect to the universe when he should know that to infer a necessary causality on the whole -- the universe -- on the basis of the attributes of the parts, is a fallacy of composition. We have absolutely no empirical basis for stating that something coming into existence (that is, an absolute beginning out of nothing) has to have a cause.
When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.
Matt has not even established that something coming into existence requires a cause. His argument cannot even get off the ground. While I might agree that a personal and impersonal cause is an antonymic pair, that point is irrelevant since he is working off a false premise.
If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.
I agree whole heartedly that the universe bringing itself into existence is illogical, just as the concept of a God making nothing turn into a universe is also illogical. Just as Matt said, nothingness is devoid of any nature or attributes. Therefore, a god cannot act on nothing and bring something (the universe) out of it.
I kind of suspect though, that Matt may also be addressing the idea of the universe not being able to spontaneously form ex nihilo (out of nothing), hence, the need for a cause. As stated above, we have zero empirical evidence to support the idea that something coming into existence ex nihilo requires a cause. But he could argue saying that logically, if the universe cannot bring itself into existence out of nothing then something else has to do it. But I contend that this is a false dichotomy. If we assume that ex nihilo is true, then the universe could have formed spontaneously due to the 'nature' of nothingness. Let me explain. True nothingness, lacks any possible property and any possible law. If this is so, then nothingness lacks any law that would prohibit the formation of something. If nothing does not permit something, such as an expanding universe, to start existing for no reason at all, then it's a fact about this nothing that the probability of something coming into existence is zero, and such a general fact would be a law, the nothing in question would not be true nothing.
In light of that, we can have a universe forming without either being from a personal or impersonal cause and neither by bringing itself into existence. It would simply be a 'by-product' of the nature, or more specifically, the naturelessness of nothing.
If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.
Matt is essentially making 2 points here. First point is:
1. If the universe always existed, it would have run out of useable energy
2. The universe cannot be infinitely old since an infinite amount of time cannot be crossed.
Just a quick note, point 1 is contingent upon point 2, so by addressing point 2, point one is also refuted. The problem of actual infinity is not just a problem for atheistic cosmology but for theistic cosmology as well. Unless a theist subscribes to a timeless view of God then he/she falls to the same problem of infinity not being able to be crossed.
Matt's argument is contingent upon a major assumption here, namely that the universe has always existed and acted in the way we perceive it today. Prior to the big bang, we do not know how the universe behaved. According to physicists, prior to the Planck time, our understanding of the laws of physics (including the 2nd law of thermodynamics which Matt makes reference to in his argument) break down. For all we know, cause and effect relationships of matter (requiring time) may not have existed. If so, then the universe could be said to have only existed for a finite amount of time but have no beginning. This might appear as a contradiction at first glance but it is not. Time is the measure of change, of movement, or motion. An asteroid flying from one position to another requires time. Even matter itself which is composed of atoms and kinetic energy requires time. But all this is how the universe as we perceive it today behaves. We have no evidence to suggest that the universe behaved prior to the big bang in the same way it does now.
The alternate view, that the universe formed spontaneously out of nothing also nullifies all of Matt's points.
If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.
If the universe existed in a form where there was no motion, then Matt's argument fails. We have no clue how the universe used to behave so neither theists or atheists can make any claims either way. If we assume that the universe could have existed in a timeless state, for instance, then saying that the universe would have formed infinitely long time before would be incoherent since there is no 'before'. Again, his argument implicitly makes hidden assumptions regarding the nature of the universe pre-big bang.
This same reasoning applies if we assume that the universe had an absolute beginning. To ask why the universe formed spontaneously out of nothing at one time and not before, or infinitely before, presupposes time.
But there is another problem that Matt fails to realize (and this is if we assume that time did exist before the big bang). If the laws of physics breaks down prior to planck time then it does not follow that there are even necessary conditions for the universe' formation. Without governing laws, the formation could occur randomly or just once for unknown reasons or no reason at all. If it could occur for no reason (and I see no reason to think that the concept of "reason" or "cause" has to exist prior to big bang) then it is futile to ask why the universe did not form an infinite amount of time before it did.
Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.
And how does Matt know that the universe could not have always existed in another form? He has no evidence for such an absurd claim. And arguments such as incoherency of divine creation, apathetic god, imperfection from perfection, and the argument from scale, nicely demonstrate that Matt's conclusion of a personal cause is most likely not the case. Theists (as well as Matt right here) time and time again always ask the question, "How did it all get here?" Such a question makes that simple category error that practically every theist falls victim to. If the existence of the universe is a necessary fact then asking, "How it all got here?" is completely futile. There is no 'how' and there is no 'why'. The brute existence of the universe is inherent and does not come from an outside source.
A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?
This again presupposes that cause and effect exist outside of the universe. Not only that, but we have counter examples to show that even within the universe, cause and effect does not always apply. For instance, the radioactive decay of an atom is scientifically proven to be uncaused. A shift in the orbit of an electron also has no cause at all, in the sense of pre-existing set of conditions that determined that it had to occur. In terms of the universe around the time of the Big Bang, unimaginably hot, unimaginably dense, unimaginably disorderly, and unimaginably tiny, is this more like a rock turning into an axe or the shift in an electron's orbit? It strikes me as very unlike a rock into an axe, mainly because it is so disorderly.
Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.
Matt's position still continues to break down. If God existed timelessly then there is no, "before the universe". In order for Matt to avoid his own problem of crossing over an infinite time gap, he has to place God outside of time. The problem is that he cannot say that, "God created AND THEN the universe came into existence." Such a notion requires time. Rather, Matt has to say that God's existence, his volition to create the universe, and the universe itself coming into existence was all simultaneous. But this would imply that the universe would come into existence at the same exact moment with when it does not exist -- a logical contradiction. This is unless Matt wants to admit that the universe has existed eternally alongside God, but we know that Matt will not go there.
In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.
And of course, such a notion places God in temporal eternality, which nullifies creationism because God would have to wait an infinite amount of time to create. By Matt saying that it was, "a decision to act at a specific time in the past" he is refuting his position with his own arguments of impossibility to traverse infinity.
You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.
By now we have seen that the only one making guesses regarding the nature of the universe pre-big bang is Matt Slick, not atheists. If anything, Matt would prefer to be in pure willful ignorance than to be humble enough and simply admit that there is not enough evidence to give us a verdict on the definite origins of the universe.
And speaking of having nothing to offer, we know already that the term 'god' is absolutely meaningless. A god that does not manifest and cannot be defined is equivalent to absolutely nothing. It is Matt Slick that is promoting absolutely nothing. Atheists promote beliefs that are reality based. That reality manifests clearly. It is axiomatic. It is the theist that is trying to add meaningless concepts that are.. quite bluntly.. purely asinine.
Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?
The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed.
And I have dealt with the standard theistic objection of what brought the universe into existence. The answer is simple. Nothing brought it into existence, it has always existed.
He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”
Matt's conclusion, that an infinite regress cannot exist, is indeed valid. However, he presupposes that only a god can terminate that regress. When a built object is slowly taken apart, it is regressing back to its inferior state. As you keep regressing, eventually, it is the object itself that terminates the regress, because you cannot regress anymore. Matt may state that this is a categorical error. However, that would only be correct if the universe was static, it is not. The universe is expanding, and when you rewind time back, the universe regresses back to it's previous simpler state.
It is the universe itself, not a god, that is the first cause. The universe forming into its current form involving time, motion, change, was inherent within the universe itself. It does not need to come from any outside source.
Nature itself exists eternally without beginning and without end. It is that nature, which laws, fills the heavens.
No comments:
Post a Comment