Unbeliever

I've recently come across a book titled Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, which includes a list of 20 arguments in favor of theism. I intend to refute them, one at a time, and I would appreciate any comments on, or critiques of, my refutations that you might like to offer. I'm primarily concerned about whether or not my logic is sound and my counter-examples sufficient, but if anyone has any further refutations to put forward, I'd like to see those as well. I will only reproduce the gist of the arguments, since my time is somewhat limited, but I will try very hard not to leave out any of the essentials of the arguments.

The first one is the Argument from Change:

When something comes to be in a certain state, that state cannot bring itself into being. Nothing changes itself. All changing things stand in need of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change.

The whole universe is in the process of change.

If there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time.These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I would say that even if something external to the universe were required to enable it to change, this argument has done nothing to demonstrate that it must be a "being", nor that this external "something" is itself unchanging.

Aside from that, I think that there are at least two possible ways to refute this argument:

The first is to point out that even if the components of the universe must be acted on by something outside of themselves in order for them to change, this doesn't necessarily hold true for the universe itself. To argue otherwise is to commit the Fallacy of Composition, which is the failure to accept that what is true for components of a system may not be true for the system as a whole. And this argument has not, in fact, shown that it is true for the universe as a whole.

The second possible refutation is to find at least one example of something that changes due to its own intrinsic nature, and not from any influence external to itself. One example is all that is necessary to disprove the argument, but I have, I believe, two; and there are probably others that I haven't yet thought of.

Well, what about a radioactive atom, such as uranium? It changes from one state, before it emits a particle and decays, to a different state after it decays. And it does so due to its own intrinsic nature, i.e., its being unstable, and does not decay due to any cause external to itself.

Another example might be stars, which change due to internal, not external, conditions, i.e., gravity, which leads to nuclear fusion, which brings about a change in the star's material substance.

I think this adequately refutes this argument. Any comments? Critiques?

Jobar

Not a bad idea at all- I suggest that all replies try to stay short, and address only one apologetic argument at a time, or else sub-divide your post so that we can clearly see which particular apology you're addressing. This way, we can later condense this thread down to a short & sweet list of refutations for each point.

Does that suit you, unbeliever? If you would like this thread to go in a different direction, just say so. J.

Magazine

I too have read that book. I also posted that first argument for God here...I argued the pro side of course.

Here's the thread, if you're interested.

rainbow walking

Hi unbeliever,
I would say the argument from change is self negating. What about change itself? Does the observation that change is a constant factor of this universe not represent at least one example of something that never changes besides some transcendant being outside the universe? Thus if we name one changeless attribute of this universe, doesn't that refute the argument? The fact that the universe is ever changing is proof that change is an unchanging attribute of the universe.

Ergo, it is more intuitively satisfying to postulate an eternal universe, and work out the definition of eternal, than to define a non-existent being that defies definition.

It is the abritrarily assigned conceptualization of cause and effect that makes it appear the universe has to have a cause.

Unbeliever

Jobar,
Your suggestion sounds just fine to me, as it will help avoid any confusion. Thanks!

Magazine,
Yes, that was a very interesting thread. I'm curious, though: how do you feel about the success (or lack thereof) of your original argument in the OP?

rainbow walking,
That's an interseting point. I'm not sure how a thiest would counter it; I suspect they would say something along the lines of "The Argument from Change doesn't state that everything must change only that things that do change require a cause outside of themselves."

Unbeliever

OK, the next argument I will consider is the Argument from Efficient Causality.

Efficient cause is that by which a thing comes to be, e.g., the pianist is the efficient cause of the music.

1. There are efficient causes in this world (i.e., producing causes).
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, for it would have to be prior to itself in order to cause itself.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of (essentially related) efficient causes, for unless there is a first cause of the series there would be no causality in the series.
4. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused, efficient Cause of all efficient causality in the world.
5. To this First Cause, we give the name of "God".
--------------------------------------------------


I think this argument presents a very simplistic view of causality, giving the impression that there is a philosophical consensus on just what causality is, and this does not seem to me to be the case. However, since I don't wish to deliver an in-depth treatment of the philosophical history of causality, I will have to content myself with some of my own thoughts on the subject.

It seems to me that for any cause and effect to occur, there must be a disequilibrium, however slight, on which one or more of the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces) can operate. Without disequilibrium there can be neither cause nor effect.

Many billions of years from now, when all of the black holes have evaporated due to Hawking radiation, and when all of the protons have decayed due to their inherent instability, the universe will consist only of an expanding sea of radiation, proceeding inexorably toward the "heat death" of the universe. Thus will the era of causality be ended, so that no more causes or effects can occur because all disequilibrium will have vanished. Our universe has been in a phase in which things can happen, and causes can produce effects, but that is only a temporary state of affairs, which will eventually come to an end.

At that time the supposed "Uncaused Cause" will have nothing on which to operate, rendering the whole concept meaningless. If it will be meaningless then, it is also meaningless now; for to say it is operating now but it will cease to operate then, is to say that it is powerless to act without disequilibrium, in which case it is the disequilibrium, which is due to the very nature of the universe, that is the more fundamental causative agent. Thus, the concept of "God" is, at best, redundant.

Jobar

The First Cause argument is negated by the fact that the separation of cause from effect is arbitrary; there are physical processes which cannot be made sense of if we try to divide them in this way. Virtual particles, radioactive decay, weather patterns- we may be able, after a fashion, to describe things like this as causes and effects, but our description will break down in a very short time if we do not allow for the fact that cause is not independent of effect, any more than vice versa.

IOW, the universe does not fit very well into a cause-and-effect paradigm.

Unbeliever

Yeah, they seem very fond of the fallacy of composition; just about every one of these silly arguments say things like "Since things within the universe are a certain way, then the universe as a whole must be that way as well."

Normal

The virtual particle argument against First Cause is a little tired. String theory implies our universe has 11 dimensions (with substantial evidence), which is more freedom of movement for virtual particles then we can account for. They may still have an unknown cause.

So you don't believe that every effect has a physical cause?

triplew00t

IMHO, I opt for an infinately expanding and contracting universe. Instead of heat death, I think the most likely event is that the expanding effects of the universe will be countered by other attractive effects, and everything will contract, compress, and start over. This may have already happened infinate times, and we have no evidence for it because everything of the old universe is destroyed in the creation of this one.

-Nero