http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=687
Simultaneous Causation
In
2011, the renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of
Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, was given a platform to spread
his atheistic perspective (“Curiosity…,” 2011).
Discovery Channel
aired a show titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking
adamantly claimed, “No.” He claimed that there is no need for God in the
picture, since he believes everything in the Universe can be explained
without Him (see Miller, 2011a for an in depth response to Hawking’s
claims in the show).
Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role
played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final
key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the
Universe created itself” (“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other
atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to
the nature of a black hole (see
Miller,
2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the
nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang.
He asserts:
You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause,
because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means
that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for
a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So,
there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp.
added).
So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big
Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big
Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is
speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big
Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even
if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in
supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.
It is a common mistake to oversimplify the Law of Causality, assuming
that it states: “Every effect must have an adequate cause which preceded
it.” In actuality, the law more correctly states: “Every
material effect must have an adequate antecedent
or simultaneous cause” (see
Miller,
2011b for an in depth discussion of the Law of Causality). The Law of
Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be
empirically observed—namely, the natural Universe (i.e., that which is
“material”), not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to
God. But even if it
did apply to the Creator, Hawking’s
belief that there’s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality
requires a previous cause—which could not be the case if time did not
exist before the Big Bang—is erroneous. Philosopher William Lane Craig
explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the
argument does not “consider the obvious alternative that the cause of
the [alleged—JM] Big Bang operated at
to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang” (Craig, 1994). Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for
simultaneous causes.
When one sits in a seat, his legs form a lap. The effect of creating a lap occurs
simultaneously
with its cause—the act of sitting—though sitting is obviously the cause
of making a lap. So clearly, causes can take place simultaneously with
their effects. Renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in his book,
The Critique of Pure Reason,
under the heading, “Principle of the Succession of Time According to
the Law of Causality: All changes take place according to the law of the
connection of Cause and Effect,” explains that, “The principle of the
connection of causality among phenomena…applies also when the phenomena
exist together in the
same time, and that cause and effect may be
simultaneous”
(Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added). He then proceeds to provide two
examples of simultaneous causation, the first being the scenario in
which the effect of a heated room occurs simultaneous with its cause—a
fire in the fireplace. He explains that, “In this case, then, there is
no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are
simultaneous; and still the law holds good” (I.3.3.2.3.3). He then
provides the example in which a lead ball lies on a cushion and
simultaneously causes the effect of an indention or “hollow” in the
cushion. Again, the effect occurs simultaneously with its cause. Kant
explains:
The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects,
and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the
cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the
moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the
causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before
ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen…. The time between the
causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and
the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one
to the other remains always determinable according to time (Kant, 1787,
I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added).
Logically, a cause
can occur simultaneous with its
effect. So, for Hawking to argue that a cause for the Big Bang is
unnecessary and even impossible since it must
precede
the Big Bang, is simply incorrect. It seems to imply a shallow
understanding of the Law of Causality on the part of Hawking. A proper
understanding of the Law of Causality reveals that the Law does not rule
out the existence of a Creator even if the Big Bang were true, since
the effect of the Universe could occur simultaneous with its causal
activity. That said, ultimately, even though Hawking is inaccurate in
his use of the Law of Causality, it is irrelevant since the Big Bang
Theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence anyway (see
Miller, 2007;
Thompson, Harrub, and May, 2003 for a presentation of some of this evidence).
REFERENCES
Craig, William Lane (1994), “Creation and Big Bang Cosmology,”
Philosophia Naturalis, 31[1994]:217-224.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011),
Discovery Channel, August 7.
Kant, Immanuel (1787),
The Critique of Pure Reason (South Australia: The University of Adelaide Library), 2
nd edition, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16p/.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”
Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=588&article=643.
Miller, Jeff (2011a), “A Review of
Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’”
Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3716.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique”
Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:33-47,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=541&article=28.
