Q&A: Causality — and the Cosmological Argument
Causality — and the Cosmological Argument
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The cosmological argument rests on the principle of causality. This principle assumes that behind every event and phenomenon there is a cause that explains its occurrence (or at least provides sufficient reason for it). From this, the cosmological argument tries to infer the existence of a cause for the world, since the world requires a cause.
But there is a very significant leap from the assumption of causality to applying it to the world. Because the principle of causality speaks about events that we know occurred. But regarding entities, we do not know whether they have a cause or not. So how can one learn from our short-term observation of the world that all the things in the world were created?! For example, even if we assume that energy as a whole was created, there is a law of conservation of mass-energy, so we can never actually observe energy being created or annihilated.
The Rabbi addresses this in the booklet and writes a claim that sounds extremely puzzling to me.
“Essentially, we assume that the objects around us are not necessary existents, nor are they self-caused (see the booklet on the ontological argument). Therefore, they necessarily had to come into being. And therefore there must be a cause for their coming into being, meaning a cause for the fact that they exist. If so, whoever accepts the principle of causality should also accept the parallel principle regarding the existence of objects or entities.”
So I wanted to ask: what is this begging of the question?!? After all, it is not derived from observation, as I already showed from the law of conservation of mass-energy. And on the other hand, it is also not derived from pure reason—for there we conclude only that occurrences require a cause, but we have no reason to assume that the singular point / energy requires a cause. So it seems that all that remains is to say that it is derived from simple faith. But I am not sure that is what the Rabbi meant.
Answer
You can call the intuition simple faith or not, but that is where it comes from. Every scientific generalization is vulnerable to your attack: who told you that a principle you observed is also true in cases you did not observe? Who told you that the moon attracts those standing on it the way the earth does? And who told you that this also happens in distant galaxies? And still, the starting point is that the generalization stands unless proven otherwise. So too, the starting point is that things in our experience require a cause, unless proven otherwise.
Beyond that, David Hume already taught that even the principle of causality itself—and even in cases where you agree that it applies—is not derived from experience. The same intuition that underlies it also underlies the cosmological argument.
Discussion on Answer
Every logical argument assumes what is being sought. I do indeed assume that it is reasonable that everything has a cause unless proven otherwise. From this I conclude that there is a God. Someone who assumes the opposite does not have to draw that conclusion. I was not wondering about anyone anywhere.
Hello Rabbi,
I agree that the whole principle of causality does not stem from observation. (Even though synchronicity without causation does follow from calculation.) But here there is already blatant begging of the question. The Rabbi is basically assuming intuitively that everything was created, and then wondering why one would not believe in God.
Is there not some deeper point here? Maybe like the argument from contingency, which infers the existence of God from the continued existence of the contingent world?