Causing the First Cause: 18 May 2004
Today I was reading in my now-overdue library book, The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt, about how a creator could neither be temporal nor timeless. Theologians like to fight about whether God is eternal in the sense that he has always been here and always will be here, that he has an infinite past, a present, and an infinite future, or whether he's not in time at all, whether he is eternal because he has no past, present, nor future, yet exists. The thing is, in order to be a cause for something (like, the universe), one has to be either before it or simultaneous to it. A preceding cause would be something like me slapping you, causing you pain -- the slap comes first and then the pain. The most famous example of a simultaneous cause would be that of a bowling ball causing a depression in a pillow -- the depression is caused by the bowling ball, but its effect occurs while the ball is there, not after it. Anyways, if God were in time and caused the universe, he would have to be either a) before creation, or b) simultaneous to creation. It is impossible to be "before creation," because time is part of creation, and you can't be before the first thing. So, if God is temporal, he must be simultaneous to creation. This runs us into trouble because then it's not clear whether God or the universe is the cause of the other one. Maybe the universe created God. It's unclear. We know in the bowling ball example that the depression in the pillow did not cause the bowling ball because bowling balls occur naturally without pillows, but bowling-ball-shaped depressions in pillows don't occur naturally without bowling balls. We have a way to test that. We don't have a way to test the relationship between God and the universe, it's impossible to isolate. On the other hand, maybe God is timeless or "outside time," just as he has no width or height. This still leaves him unable to create the universe. Why? Well, causes have to be before or simultaneous to their effects. A timeless being is neither before nor simultaneous to anything. The thing about being outside of time is that that particular god wouldn't be able to change (immutability) nor act.
Now, that seems to be a pretty good argument, though I've condensed it from memory and maybe mangled it a bit in the process. Why wasn't I taught this in my oh-so-expensive bible college philosophy courses where we were supposed to be building defences against the evil atheists? Maybe I got ripped off. Instead they told me the main theistic arguments and gave me no clue as to what the atheistic philosopher would reject about them. Instead I felt trepidation when looking at non-Christian philosophy books or websites. Isn't the best offence a good defence? Isn't the key to a good philosophical defence the knowledge of what the other team is going to throw at you? If there's anything I've decided this year, it's that research is of ultimate importance.
Proverbs 18:17 (NIV) "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."
<--sooner · later-->
<-- Faith Dissolved