|
One problem cited by theists against the Big Bang theory of cosmology is that it falls victim to infinite regression, and therefore makes no sense. Put simply, every effect must have a cause. One things always leads to another, and you can always work backwards from an event to the event that caused it. This is reasonable, until you start thinking about the Big Bang. Theists will claim that this must have had a cause, otherwise it is claimed to be uncaused, which is impossible in the physical universe. Therefore, something external to the universe must have been responsible for the Big Bang, and that "something" is claimed to be God. [1] In response to this, however, I must ask : What caused God to initiate the Big Bang? He must have had a reason to do it, otherwise it would appear that he did it for no reason, or by accident. This idea of a clumsy idiot God seems unlikely (though not impossible), so God must have had a very good reason to do it. Again, God cannot have a reason for doing a certain thing purely by accident, so there must have a been a cause for this reason. And so on. God's reasoning and actions fall victim to the problem of infinite regression. There must be an infinite number of thoughts, reasons and decisions leading up to God deciding to initiate the Big Bang, and as it is impossible to traverse an infinite line of reasoning (if it has an end, it can have no beginning, and vice versa), it becomes impossible for God to reach the decision to cause the Big Bang. It could be that the idea of God as being eternal, with neither beginning nor end, is simply flawed - bringing infinity into it makes the whole thing meaningless. Perhaps our language and minds are simply unable to deal with the truth of the matter (in which case, how else might we be mistaken about "God"?). Perhaps God just does not exist and so the argument is null and void. One response from the theist would be that God is omniscient, and so does not need to follow a line of reasoning to reach a decision. This makes a certain amount of sense, for if God had to reason something through or make some sort of decision at all, he must have previously been without the knowledge of the resulting from that decision, and could not have been omniscient. He already knows what to do, and so his decisions are by definition uncaused. His decisions are always correct, because that is his nature. This definition of God suggests that he cannot therefore be considered a thinking, reasoning, intelligent being. He just does things, without motive or reason. To ask the question "Why did God do [something]" becomes meaningless, as he could not have done it for any reason at all. For instance, God could not have sent Jesus to die for our sins, because he loved us, as this would imply the motive of wanting to save his loved ones. You could only say "God sent Jesus ... for no reason at all, he just did." To say that God did something "because" or "in order to", immediately invokes the infinitely regressive line of reasoning, showing that God could never have reached a decision to do anything, or that God is not omniscient (and therefore nonexistent as a God) because he was lacking some knowledge. Another objection is that we cannot compare the mind of God with our own thought processes. This would conflict with the Biblical claim that we made in God's image, for one thing. Also, it begs the question : how do you know what God's mind is like? If God is described as having thought processes even remotely analogous to our own, the infinite regression problem comes into play. If not, them just what do Christians mean by "made in his image"? This leaves us with the standard cosmological theory of a lawless, temporal and dimensional point or singularity, which was not caused and did not need a cause. Still, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we'll allow God to cause the Big Bang, and from then on the universe develops in the standard manner according to current cosmology (primordial "soup" of energy, electrons and protons, symmetry-breaking, eventually settles down into hydrogen and a bit of helium, and so on). That's all he has to do - start the Big Bang, put his feet up for fourteen billion years, then start listening to prayers. Is this a problem? Well... yes. The instant after the Big Bang began, the universe was a lawless,
chaotic plasma of raw energy where the current laws of physics were
meaningless. There was no order to it, and nothing to determine how
it would end up. As it happens, it ended up as we see it today, but
it may not have done. If God caused the Big Bang to happen, he
could not have created it in such a way as to ensure that it would develop
in any particular direction (chaotic and lawless, remember?) This means
that God would have to step in immediately after the Big Bang to sort
things out and make sure everything went the way it should. Quentin
Smith describes it thus, in "Simplicity
and Why the Universe Exists" : So, we now have a God who bodges the initial job and then has to get his hands dirty tidying it all up again - perfect and all-knowing? It would seem not. Young-earth creationists, on the other hand, have it all sorted out from the word go - God simply made everything right first time, ten thousand years ago. No problem for God, and he gets to remain perfect and all-knowing. Except... many of the claims of young earth creationism are demonstrably false or cannot be shown to explain the available evidence in any useful manner, so we now have a situation where a false model of creation (Biblical Creationism) actually makes more sense than the "bolting God onto the Big Bang" model. The more "God" is used as an explanation of anything, the more absurd and implausible "God" becomes. Cause and effect denies GodIn his famous essay "Why I am not a Christian", Bertrand Russell dismisses the Argument From First Cause almost immediately, pointing out that if everything must have a cause, then the question "Who made god?" needs to be asked. At this point, theists have a habit of resorting to special pleading ("Everything except God, I meant"), mystery or just faith. Invoking an acausal God to avoid the inifinite regression problem is not the answer, however. Solve a mystery with an even greater mystery? I don't think so. It also raises yet more problems (not the least of which would be "What caused God's first action?"). To say that God is the "Prime Mover" or "First Cause" implies that cause-and-effect is a universal, unbroken chain of events leading back through space and time to God. That is to say, every effect has a cause, which in turn has another cause. This is pure determinism, and would mean that the entire universe, ourselves included, is nothing more than a large clockwork toy wound up by God. It denies any form of free will whatsoever, as to make a free action you would have to break the chain of cause-and-effect. Otherwise, all your actions are explicitly determined by previous causes, which in turn have their own causes, right back to before life began and the universe consisted entirely of "atoms banging into each other", and then back to God. If you believe in truly free will, then it is unreasonable to think that God must have been the First Cause of your universe. There must be a break in the chain somewhere, otherwise all your actions are determined by previous actions, in an unbroken chain originating from God's action. God himself could not break this chain, as to do so would be just another "cause" from which followed all other effects. It must be possible for some effects ("events" would be a better word) to happen without cause, or you are just a robot following a predetermined path programmed by God. To accept that there is free will, chance, randomness or acuasality of any sort opens the distinct possibility that the universe itself had no cause. No Prime Mover. No God. * * * * Interestingly enough, there are objections to the Big Bang theory from within the scientific community. In "Was There a Big Bang? I Honestly Don't Know", Richard Carrier describes some of the problems with the theory (and the passionate opposition met by anybody who voices such doubts). Personally, I think that the Big Bang theory is likely to be confirmed (although we may have to wait for a Grand Unified Theory for this to unite quantum mechanics with Einstein), but if it is not and something better comes along to replace it, I shall say "Great! Another step nearer the truth." Of course, theists who see the Big Bang as solid evidence for their God will also have to change their tune fairly quickly, to keep up with the findings of secular science once again. If not, they will find themselves depending on a falsified theory to demonstrate the existence of their Creator. While some young-Earth creationists are hoping that the Big Bang theory is false, there must be many "Big Bang" creationists praying that it is true! Also, if the Big Bang theory is shown to be false, the theory that replaces might be even worse news for theists, as it could turn out that the universe had no actual beginning (and therefore needs no Creator), or the formation of the universe may be very easy to explain in naturalistic terms (still no Creator). © Adrian Barnett, 2000, 2001. Last updated 22nd Jan 2001 Notes:
|
