An Ultimate Effect Demands an Ultimate Cause
I am not a scientist, even though I
almost was going to make biology a minor; I am not a pastor, even though I am
planning to go into the ministry; I am not a philosopher, even though it is one
of my current passions. I am simply a
seminary student studying missions and a student who is interested in
philosophy and science. Even when I earn
my degree, it will not give me credibility to the world other than the fact
that I studied the Bible to understand the world that we live in to a better
degree. In obtaining this degree, I am,
by faith, staking my life in the studies of theology, which some may claim
would hinder my opinion. However, in
order to get this degree, I do not have to leave reason behind. In fact, reason can easily be a tool used to
understand the world we live in. While
obtaining this degree, I am applying reason, theories, and belief in order to
reach the conclusions that I uncover.
If I were obtaining a degree in science,
the study of the knowledge of the world we live in, I would be applying reason
and theories in order to reach a conclusion that I would uncover. On top of that, the field of science is one
that no one can fully master, so my education would not be close to complete if
I were majoring in science. However, if there is no room for a Higher Being
in my education, then I would be excluding a factor in my research that is a
tool to reach a conclusion. I am not
saying that reason and theories cannot prove the existence of God; I am saying
that if I am not open for the possibility for a higher being, I would be
eliminating a tool that could get me there quicker.
In this work, I will attempt to use
cause and effect to show how reason can easily prove the possibility of the
existence of a higher power, in which I will label “God” during the remainder
of this work, unless named otherwise. Using
the Big Bang theory, I will show how this theory requires the belief in a God
through cause and effect reasoning.
The Big Bang Theory
Through many projects and years of
research, scientists have come to the conclusion that a Big Bang happened to
create the world. The question then is
whether this event was a cause or effect.
Let’s use reason now to look at the possibility of such an event to be
the ultimate beginning of everything.
During a storm, there is
a very important phenomenon that takes place:
a cause and an effect (an event and then a sound). Lightning, according to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, is “the flashing of light produced by a discharge of atmospheric
electricity; also : the
discharge itself” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lightning). Thunder, according to the same source, is
“the sound that follows a flash of lightning and is caused by sudden expansion
of the air in the path of the electrical discharge” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thunder). If the possibility of these two definitions
being wrong was even possible, then it would be on the one challenging these
two definitions to prove otherwise.
Would it be reasonable, therefore, to rebuild these definitions? Let’s think about the order of events in
order to reasonably try to challenge this convention of thought. When there is a storm, humans first see the
lightning and then hear the thunder. The
speed of sound is 340.29 meters per second, and the speed of light is 299,792,458
meters per second. Therefore, the speed
of light is 880,991.09 times faster than the speed of sound. (This illustration is incomplete at the
moment due to me calculating; however, the main point is that lightning is the
cause of thunder, not the other way around, and this theory is shown throughout
nature in other cause-and-effect relations.)
In order to claim that something is an ultimate
cause, the following two things cannot be possible: the cause was inexistent at one point and the
cause was caused by something else. In
either case, the cause would then be an effect because it came into existence. Therefore, by reasoning, it would be
impossible for that “ultimate cause” to be the ultimate cause of everything since
it either had to be created or come into existence on its own. Logic does not hold that something can come
into existence on its own, so it is not logical to hold the belief that a cause
had no cause if it was inexistent at one point.
Therefore, it cannot logically be believed to be the origin of the
universe. Also, if the “ultimate cause”
had to be created, then there is a cause that caused it, therefore denying its
claim as ultimate cause. If these two
claims are proven false, that only leaves two more options: either there is an ultimate cause that has
never not existed (in other words, it always existed) or there is no ultimate
cause because the object itself is the ultimate cause.
In the context of the origins of the universe, this
means that either there was an ultimate cause for the origins of the universe,
or the universe has always existed.
Scientific knowledge seems to prove that the universe could not have
always existed. The most popular belief
of the origins of the universe held by scientists is the Big Bang Theory. The definition of the Big Bang is “the cosmic
explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang
Theory” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20bang). Once again, as shown with
the lightning and thunder illustration, it is up to the opposition to disprove
the scientific theory. However, I am not
here to disprove the Big Bang theory as a whole; I am simply here to show that
the Big Bang theory does not prove to be the beginning of the universe; it
could just as easily been a method used by the ultimate cause and still be as
powerful as it is on its own.
First, let us examine the Big Bang theory as an
effect of the ultimate cause and see how it could be as powerful a claim as is
the claim that it was the ultimate cause.
Since the Big Bang is an event rather than a being, there was a point in
time that it did not exist. The
following line shows an illustration of one of the two possible processes that
was used by the Big Bang. →
The arrow in the above line shows the Big Bang as the first part of the
line, and the arrow tip on the right side shows it going on forever. This is not the common belief in science, so
it could easily be disproven by modern science.
According to most scientists, it appears that the universe, or at least
the earth, will one day cease to exist.
The next illustration shows the most common scientific theory. –
In the above line, there are no arrows because according to most
scientists, the universe came into existence and then will no longer exist
sometime in the future. Therefore, there
is no continuity in the universe’s existence.
As it came into existence with the Big Bang, it will probably end in the
opposite of a Big Bang according to modern science. There are many theories and names for this,
so that is not something I am going to discuss in this work.
There is another possibility for the origins of the
universe. There is the theory that an
eternal being (which we are referring to as God) created the universe. The illustration of this theory is as
The above illustration shows that the eternal being has no beginning and
no end. Along with this theory, it is generally
held that this God created the universe and that the universe will be ended by
this God. There is logic in this theory
because the God would be eternal and would have no beginning or end, which has
no interference with logic and reason. Also,
along with this theory, it could be held that the God caused the existence of
the universe through a Big Bang. It is
not exactly the same as the scientific theory; however, there is no need for
the Big Bang to be the origin of the universe if it is not the ultimate cause
and is, therefore a tool used to bring about the effect of the ultimate cause. If the Big Bang theory were to be true,
according to my two illustrations, one would have to either go against reason
(due to the improbability of the ultimate cause being random) or would have to
go against current science knowledge (since there is reason to believe that the
universe had a beginning and will have an end).
It does not go against reason and science to claim that the universe was
created by God because there is continuity of God’s existence and science cannot
disprove God’s existence.
As previously mentioned,
I have no problem with the theory of the Big Bang in its most broad sense;
however, I do have a problem with the theory of it being the ultimate cause of
the universe. It is not logical to hold
the view that it is the ultimate cause. The
main reason for this is that the only way for the Big Bang to be the ultimate
cause is through random creation of the universe. If something caused the Big Bang, which is
more reasonable and more logical, then the Big Bang can not be viewed as the
ultimate cause of the universe, and therefore the Big Bang becomes a tool that
the ultimate cause used to create the universe.
My own definitions:
Ultimate cause: The cause of something that does
not itself have a cause; everything else is caused by it, and it, therefore,
does not have a cause.
Big Bang (scientific sense): The view that
science holds as the ultimate
cause of the universe.
In this theory, the universe came into existence by an explosion, which
created a simplified earth that eventually became the universe we know of
today. Also, through this theory, the
earth is expanding and will probably eventually shrink back and possibly vanish
as it came into existence. Through this
theory, there are many variations, but it is the one I am using in this work.
Big Bang (the one I most likely
accept): The Big Bang
was the tool used by the Creator of the universe. It is not the ultimate cause of the universe, since the Creator is, but it does hold as much ground as
the scientific Big Bang is because there is no explanation in the Bible about
the method God used to create the universe.
The universe could have been caused by an explosion that God used; this
term could be considered the “Big Bang” but, according to this theory, it is not
the ultimate cause.
Cet article a été publié dans la Philosophie
. Ajoutez ce permalien
à vos favoris.