Re:Criminal Waste of Public Funds (Score 1)

I agree that, as a philosophical problem, science does no better (but no worse) a job dealing with this paradox. I mostly brought it up to point out that you can't, in an argument with a scientific slant, just snip out "evolution" and replace it with "God" without accepting the logical consequences. Scientists didn't just make up this concept of "natural selection" as a way to avoid talking about religion. When Darwin proposed "natural selection" as a mechanism for evolutionary change, he was obligated to give some kind of explanation for the mechanics of and physics behind the process, as well as to provide predictions which could conceivably disprove his theory. If somebody suggests God as a mechanism for change in a scientific context, then (s)he is under the same obligations, and I have yet to hear a reasonable God theory which even makes the attempt. That was my promary point.

However, that doesn't seem to answer your question. I think the problem here is the assumption of an Uncaused Cause. Let's look at it this way:

• Either the Universe is infinite in duration or it isn't.
• If it is, then there is no uncaused cause, since the causes go back without limit. "It's turtles all the way down."
• If it isn't (and physicists don't think that it is), then it has a specific start point.
• What we mean by the word Universe is the sum total of everything, in all dimensions.
• There can therefore be nothing above or to the left of or behind the Universe. Since Time is one of the dimensions of the Universe, there can also be nothing before or after the Universe.
• Since there can be nothing before the Universe, it is semantically meaningless to talk about the "cause" of the Universe. Causality requires chronology, and there is no time outside of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe itself (and all physical laws therein) could be its own Uncaused Cause.
• Now, we could postulate a Creator anyway, but there doesn't seem to be a need, and Occam's Razor tells us not to add new logical entities unless they are required by the argument.
• Therefore, we don't need a God as a First Cause. That's not saying that He isn't needed to fill other logical holes, but we don't need him to fill this one.

Does that answer the question? Any arguments out there, anybody?

Chris Coslor
coslor[at]sprynet.com