Over the next few weeks, I’m going to respond to some of Dr. William Lane Craig’s most
popular arguments and assertions, and I’m going to begin with just a few that he’s
made regarding causation and creation. Now, Craig’s pièce de résistance is, of course,
Al Ghazali’s Kalam Cosmological argument, and he presents it as follows: “Premise
1) whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning; premise 2) he universe began
to exist; from which it follows 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.”
However, more recently, Craig has been rebranded the first premise to make it, in his words,
“more modest:” “The first premise can be stated more modestly as 1 prime) if the
universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning. This more modest
version of the first premise will enable us to avoid distractions about whether subatomic
particles (which are the results of quantum decay processes) come into being without a
cause.” Now, Craig acts as if this shift in premise is an act of modesty on his part
as to avoid distractions (“distractions”), but I would argue (and indeed will within
this video) that he makes this shift because he recognises that the quantum realm doesn’t
abide classical causation, and thus to save the argument he needs the universe to be treated
as if it’s strictly macroscopic. This is Causation and Creation (a reply to Dr. Craig).
“Let me give three reasons in support of premise one prime. First, something cannot
come from nothing; to claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse
than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat at least you've got the magician…
not to mention the Hat, but if you deny premise one Prime you've got to think that the whole
universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody
sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village can just pop into being
without a cause.” It’s quite often the case that when responding to theologians,
such as Craig, I feel the need to interject after just about every sentence, as if the
foundation is weak, so too will be the leaning tower built upon it. But I’ve found that
for clarity’s sake, it’s often more effective to show the whole segment and to then respond
one part at a time, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do here. So, as you’ve just
seen, Craig opens by saying: “Something cannot come from nothing.” And since he's
presenting a first cause argument, you might be tempted (like I was) to assume that he's
making a statement about causation; that he's more eloquently saying “Everything has a
cause.” However, his very next words call this interpretation into question: “To claim
that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic.” The reason being is
subtle, but crucial… and it comes down to the term ‘come into being.’ ‘Being’
literally means ‘existence’ (to ‘be’ is to ‘exist’), and so to say that something
has ‘come into being’ is to say that something has ‘began to exist’; that it’s been
created. Hence, unlike the first sentence (which is at least conceivably an assertion
about causation) this second sentence is an assertion about creation). Now to be clear,
I'm not accusing Craig of any tricks here, but rather, I'm making a subtle but crucial
distinction, which relates to the aforementioned “distractions” (“distractions”). While
our intuition would have us believe that creation and classical causation are indisputably linked,
quantum mechanics clearly demonstrates that they're not. In the classical, macroscopic
world, we see one domino (event A) cause the fall of another domino (Event B), but in the
quantum realm, this isn’t the case. For example, studies of quantum superposition
(which is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics), demonstrate that event A can cause
event B, event B can cause event A, and on occasion both A and B can be completely independent!
What’s more, we see atoms both excited and not excited at the same time (which calls
into question the law of noncontradiction), and we can even see them in two separate positions
at the same time. Add to this quantum entanglement, quantum fluctuations, and other such quantum
observations, and our beloved classical causation goes completely and utterly out the window
– or as Sean Carroll puts it: “At a fundamental, microscopic level, all we can say is that
there are patterns between events. The macroscopic, human-scale concepts of cause and effect only
emerge when you have larger collections of particles, like humans!” And yet, despite
the quantum realm violating classical causation, it hasn’t been shown to violate the law
of conservation of energy… every atom is accounted for; everything, so far as we know,
is created from already existing material. Hence, we have some things (in fact, billions
of things) coming into being (that is, creatio ex materia) without a classical cause (and
perhaps without any cause whatsoever). Thus, creation and causation are not two sides of
the same coin, and it’s a mistake to treat them as such. This isn’t a distraction,
it’s a refutation. “When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat at least you've got
the magician… not to mention the Hat, but if you deny premise one Prime you've got to
think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever.”
Except, no, we don’t. First off, notice that this is a black and white fallacy. Craig
would have you believe that either the universe has a cause or it just popped into existence
for no reason whatsoever, but there is at least one more option, and this brings me
to my second point. We could reject not only the cause claim of the premise, but also the
existence claim. That is, we could claim that the universe never began to exist (it’s
always existed) in precisely the same way that Craig claims that his god never began
to exist… but we can do so without his additional assumptions. Again, to be clear, I’m accusing
Craig of chicanery here, but rather, making a point. “But nobody sincerely believes
that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village can just pop into being without a cause.”
So, just the other night, I was on a Hangout call with the actor and stupendously smart
dude, Scott Clifton (as you do), and he expressed a criticism of Craig’s apologetics that
directly addresses what was just said. Sure, nobody sincerely believes that MACROSCOPIC
things can just pop into existence without a cause, and for good reason: our empirical
observations and, more importantly, our objective, verifiable evidence clearly shows that when
macroscopic things ‘begin to exist’ they do so via causation. However, and this was
Scott’s excellent point, the EXACT same objective, verifiable evidence EQUALLY shows
that all ‘new’ macroscopic things are comprised of material that already existed…
Hence, Craig and his ilk are cherry-picking to the extreme; they’re confidently asserting
that macroscopic things are caused in the classical sense, and yet they’re rejecting
that all ‘new’ macroscopic things are merely a rearrangement of already existing
matter! They’re having their cake and binning too! Anyhow… springboarding from this claim,
Craig goes on to state the following: “If something can come into being from nothing,
then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn't come into being from
nothing. Think about it, why don't bicycles and Beethoven and root beer come into being
out of nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes
nothing that's so discriminatory?” Consider this: The United States is the richest country
in the world; therefore, everyone in the United States is rich. Now, this is most glaringly
a non-sequitur, but it’s more accurately a fallacy of division, because it assumes
that an attribute of the whole must also be true of some or all of its parts. Put simply,
just because the United States (the whole) is rich, it doesn’t follow that all of its
citizens (the parts) are rich. Likewise, if the universe (the whole) came into being uncaused,
it wouldn’t follow that things within the universe (the parts) are uncaused. Hence,
Craig is committing a Fallacy of Division when he says: “Think about it, why don't
bicycles and Beethoven and root beer come into being out of nothing? Why is it only
universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothing that's so discriminatory?”
What’s more, note that the universe isn’t something… it’s everything! And further
still (though slightly already covered) note that classical cause and effect is predicated
upon time; if there are no temporal states for A to cause B, then A simply can’t cause
B. To wrap up, I’d like to pour us a tall glass of humble-juice… that sounded better
on paper-- I want to emphasize that if the discoveries of the 20th century have taught
us anything, it’s how little we know – and it cautions us not to be so sure of ourselves.
There’s a reason why Newton’s laws were called ‘laws’ and yet Einstein’s theories
called ‘theories’… compared to our ancestors, we are not so sure of ourselves, and that
is a good thing. That is humility. Now, theists don’t typically like to admit this (because
doing so jeopardizes their entire worldview), but the vast majority of physicists (who are,
after all, the people who most understand these things), admit, with full humility,
that we don’t have all the answers – we don’t know if the grand universe is eternal
or had a beginning. But if you want to hear people claim, confidently, that we do know
the answers, then look no further than the religious, for they start with their conclusion
and work backwards; in this regard, they are the antithesis of science and an affront to
honest, humble investigation. Case in point, be caution of those who say they know, especially
when they’re trespassing upon fields in which they have no expertise. “But if you
deny premise 1 prime you have to think that the whole universe just appeared as some point
in the past for no reason whatsoever.” “If something can come into being from nothing,
then it become inexplicable why anything and everything doesn’t come into being from
nothing.” “Something cannot come from nothing.” To quote the acclaimed Stephen
Hawkins, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority,
and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford, and as always, thank you kindly for the view and an extra
special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel
through other means. You are the cause of this channel’s success; you are the gods
to this creation. Thank you.