Originally Posted by
teacher
Additional Criticisms to the Argument from Causation
February 15, 2008
I. Does Everything Have An Efficient Cause?
Quantum mechanics, which is the field of physics that studies very small atoms and even things smaller than atoms, argues that the world is not orderly, predictable and continuous. In other words, many experiments have shown that sometimes not everything must have an efficient cause.
At the sub atomic level, particles such as electrons, positrons and neutrons can burst into existence without the dependency of some other thing. Since there is no exact point of origin that can explain this strange phenomenon, it isn’t necessarily true that every effect has an efficient cause—at least with respect to the sub atomic level.
II. Circular Causation—No Beginning or End
Rather than argue for a first cause or an uncaused universe, perhaps the universe is composed of a series of causes that run in a circle.
Some Eastern religions would accept this model of the universe. Consider the belief that the death of any living organism is a continuation of a new life cycle. For example, the “death” of a flower partakes in a new form of life—it becomes rich soil and provides nourishment for other living organisms. The flower that becomes part of the soil would also become part of the bird that feeds from the soil, and so on and so forth. The flower is not permanently out of existence, since it takes part of another form of life. Thus, every living organism, including ourselves, is ultimately interconnected with one another.
We can extend this analogy to the “big picture”, namely, the universe: it has no beginning, nor an end. Perhaps the universe as we know it is currently being reborn from a previous life cycle. And this cycle will continue without end.
III. Causation Doesn’t Work Without Time
Many argue that time is a necessary condition for causation so that in order for there to be any cause and effect relation, time must exist. For example, when we say that A causes B, what we really mean to say is that A is prior in time to B, or A precedes B.
However, some philosophers of science have argued that time is an illusion. Although time may seem to us as though it passes, “time” is really unchanging and constant. If time isn’t real and causation depends on time, then causation must be an illusion. Thus, to speak of a first cause turns out to be meaningless.
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
