The first cause argument goes like this...the fact there is something rather than nothing points to a first cause, and that first cause must be a purposeful being existing outside of time and space (i.e. God) Critics of this argument state if there must be a first cause for everything then you must answer who created the creator. Bertrand Russell, the famed atheist, made this criticism popular.
This criticism, however, deserves to be criticized. Let's try applying it to something else. Suppose I was an archeologist, and during one of my digs in Michigan I found some very ancient tools, predating Native Americans as we know them. It would be a very significant find. I would immediately know that there were people here who made these tools. I would not need to know how they came to ancient Michigan to know that they were here. However, if I were to apply Bertrand Russell's criticism to the first cause argument to this situation, I would need to know the first cause of the ancient civilization, and the first cause of that first cause, and the first cause of that first cause etc. before I could conclude that there were people there at all. It is entirely illogical, and if you applied this to science or history we would never know anything about anything.
I would say then that when one concludes from evidence that physical reality must have been created by a personal and intentional creator that this does not put a burden of proof on them to explain the origins of the Creator. It is not a logical criticism.
This criticism, however, deserves to be criticized. Let's try applying it to something else. Suppose I was an archeologist, and during one of my digs in Michigan I found some very ancient tools, predating Native Americans as we know them. It would be a very significant find. I would immediately know that there were people here who made these tools. I would not need to know how they came to ancient Michigan to know that they were here. However, if I were to apply Bertrand Russell's criticism to the first cause argument to this situation, I would need to know the first cause of the ancient civilization, and the first cause of that first cause, and the first cause of that first cause etc. before I could conclude that there were people there at all. It is entirely illogical, and if you applied this to science or history we would never know anything about anything.
I would say then that when one concludes from evidence that physical reality must have been created by a personal and intentional creator that this does not put a burden of proof on them to explain the origins of the Creator. It is not a logical criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment