“If the universe comes into being, then there exists an efficient cause which is responsible for bringing the universe into being.”
This proposition is the first premise in a version of the Kalam.
Universe signifying as Vilenkin states, "the entire connected spacetime region."--Alex V.
Comes into being, assuming an A-Theory of time, can be explicated as follows: for any entity e and time t,
e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. (This explication courtesy of Dr. Craig over at www.reasonablefaith.org)
Efficient cause signifying that state of affairs responsible for bringing the universe into existence.
Responsible for bringing into being signifying as Aristotle does, the efficient cause of something i.e. that agent which brings about an effect.
Using these terms, we can provide an example of this.
E. If a computer comes into being, then there exists an efficient cause which is responsible for bringing the computer into existence.
This seems true. At least more plausible than its negation. The metaphysical intuition that from nothing, nothing comes leads us to concluding that computers do not pop into being without an efficient cause, but that they exist because somebody took some computer parts and put them together to make a functioning computer.
In this case we have three distinct causes (Aristotle). The efficient, the material, and the final.
The efficient is the personal agent who assembles the material (plastic, metal, rubber) for the final end that it be used for computing purposes.
But in this case, we rightly recognize that the material cause itself, owes its existence to a cause. The plastic, metal and rubber did not just come into being sans causal conditions. The three are derived from natural elements found in the earth. But we rightly recognize that these elements, and the earth in which they are found, did not just come into being sans causal conditions. The earth owes its existence to something outside of itself, something other than itself. We don't conclude that the earth popped into being without a cause, or that it caused itself to come into being, or that it is eternally existing uncaused. There was some state of affairs causally prior to the earth coming into being which caused it to come into being, i.e. the various events occurring in galaxy formations etc. If the film of the history of the universe is rewound, we observe a reversal of the expansion of the spacetime region down to a theoretical singularity. There was no spacetime region, then there was. There was no matter, then there was.
When I examine the data and then examine the worldviews which attempt to make heads or tails out of this data, the worldview that denies that there was an efficient cause of all of this seems to me to be untenable. I am not persuaded that the spacetime region just popped into being without any causal conditions. Can I prove that it did not pop into being sans causal conditions. I sure can't. Do I know with certainty that it did not? I sure don't. Are these questions meaningless and pointless to me? They sure aren't. Does this prove that the God of Christianity created the universe, not at all.
What it does do for me, is point me, like so many little bread crumbs along a path obscured by my line of sight ending at the horizon, to a reality beyond the universe.
This is one piece, of the cumulative case, for my worldview.
This proposition is the first premise in a version of the Kalam.
Universe signifying as Vilenkin states, "the entire connected spacetime region."--Alex V.
Comes into being, assuming an A-Theory of time, can be explicated as follows: for any entity e and time t,
e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. (This explication courtesy of Dr. Craig over at www.reasonablefaith.org)
Efficient cause signifying that state of affairs responsible for bringing the universe into existence.
Responsible for bringing into being signifying as Aristotle does, the efficient cause of something i.e. that agent which brings about an effect.
Using these terms, we can provide an example of this.
E. If a computer comes into being, then there exists an efficient cause which is responsible for bringing the computer into existence.
This seems true. At least more plausible than its negation. The metaphysical intuition that from nothing, nothing comes leads us to concluding that computers do not pop into being without an efficient cause, but that they exist because somebody took some computer parts and put them together to make a functioning computer.
In this case we have three distinct causes (Aristotle). The efficient, the material, and the final.
The efficient is the personal agent who assembles the material (plastic, metal, rubber) for the final end that it be used for computing purposes.
But in this case, we rightly recognize that the material cause itself, owes its existence to a cause. The plastic, metal and rubber did not just come into being sans causal conditions. The three are derived from natural elements found in the earth. But we rightly recognize that these elements, and the earth in which they are found, did not just come into being sans causal conditions. The earth owes its existence to something outside of itself, something other than itself. We don't conclude that the earth popped into being without a cause, or that it caused itself to come into being, or that it is eternally existing uncaused. There was some state of affairs causally prior to the earth coming into being which caused it to come into being, i.e. the various events occurring in galaxy formations etc. If the film of the history of the universe is rewound, we observe a reversal of the expansion of the spacetime region down to a theoretical singularity. There was no spacetime region, then there was. There was no matter, then there was.
When I examine the data and then examine the worldviews which attempt to make heads or tails out of this data, the worldview that denies that there was an efficient cause of all of this seems to me to be untenable. I am not persuaded that the spacetime region just popped into being without any causal conditions. Can I prove that it did not pop into being sans causal conditions. I sure can't. Do I know with certainty that it did not? I sure don't. Are these questions meaningless and pointless to me? They sure aren't. Does this prove that the God of Christianity created the universe, not at all.
What it does do for me, is point me, like so many little bread crumbs along a path obscured by my line of sight ending at the horizon, to a reality beyond the universe.
This is one piece, of the cumulative case, for my worldview.
Last edited:
