Is belief in God rational?
Hello Rabbi, I must say that I watched your debate with Aviv Franco and you intrigued me greatly with your opinions, to the point that I watched this debate 6 times.
I have constructed a new, slightly different argument, and I would love to hear your opinion on it.
Below is a common argument for the existence of God that relates to causality:
– Everything in the universe has a reason.
– Infinite causal regression is not possible.
– Therefore, there is a primary cause for the creation of the universe, and its name is God.
Assuming that infinite regression of causes is impossible, we have a problem:
The principle of causality requires an infinite regress of causes if it is true, because everything has a cause.
But the first thing in the chain of causation has no cause, because if it had a cause it would not be the first in the chain.
So an internal contradiction arises in the argument here.
So to arrive at a primary cause, we will use a cause that is simultaneous (occurs at the same time) with the effect, as is also common in quantum science.
But the problem that the principle of causality requires in infinite regression has not yet been solved.
Because even if there is a cause that is simultaneous with its effect, that cause is still something.
And everything has a reason according to the principle of causality, so this thing also has a reason.
So to resolve this internal contradiction I argue that David’s principle of causality today does not apply to causes that are simultaneous with the effect. And here the argument begins:
The claim that the principle of causality does not apply to causes that are simultaneous with the effect may conflict with the principles of logic only if we assume that every event requires a prior cause. On the other hand, we can reverse the analysis and say that every cause, even a cause that is simultaneous with the effect, is in fact the effect of another cause, since we expect there to be a cause for everything.
To clarify, if we use the concept that every cause is essentially the result of another cause, there is no contradiction here. This indicates that there is a relative relationship between a specific cause and an effect, where the cause itself is the result of something else. That is, the claim being described indicates that if we view the cause as the result of another cause, and not as a prior cause, there is no logical contradiction with the principle of causality.
When we observe an event that is the result of a cause that is simultaneous with the effect, we are simply using the theory of simultaneous causation to explain reality. David’s principle of causality today treats everything as a source for every event. That is, anything that can cause something can be a source for some event, even if we do not have full knowledge of how that cause came about. It is permissible and correct to assume that there is a cause for everything, even if we do not fully understand its causal process. Therefore, there is no contradiction here with David’s principle of causality today.
This principle allows us to deal with the complexity of the world and build rational opinions based on natural phenomena and social reality. Therefore, the claim that today’s principle of causality does not apply to simultaneous causes with the effect is not based on a logical contradiction and remains in the rational realm. Because we use the principle of causality to understand the world around us.
Even in science, as can be seen in quantum science, there are examples of simultaneous causality. Here is a good example from science on the subject:
It can be argued that simultaneous causes occur in the quantum realm, where particles can be in multiple states of existence at the same time, and therefore are in multiple states at once. In a similar way, one can distinguish between the causal relationship of cause and effect in simultaneous causation and the principle of causality of the day.
And in conclusion:
– The principle of causality assumes that everything has a cause.
– Causes that are simultaneous with the effect are considered causes within the theory of simultaneous causation.
– The principle of causality is used as a research and theoretical tool for understanding complex reality.
– The claim that the principle of causality does not apply to causes simultaneous with the effect does not contain an internal contradiction and is logically sound.
As it became clear in the analysis of the logical principle of the principle of causality, it can be concluded that everything needs a cause, even if we do not fully understand its causal process. Accordingly, we call the cause of the universe God. This cause exists according to the rational explanation of the principle of causality. Accordingly, belief in God is not only religious, but rational, because it uses a logical perception of reality and leads to the conclusion that there is a divine existence that leads to the creation of the universe.
In this way, belief in G-d as the first cause does not contradict the principles of causality but rather constitutes a rational extension of them, using modern scientific and philosophical insights.
I didn’t understand anything here. Neither what’s wrong with the usual argument nor what you’re suggesting. What’s different about simultaneous causation compared to usual causation?
There is an old claim that all causality must be simultaneous, because if not, then there is a moment when the cause occurred and the antecedent did not happen. But this is not a claim for several reasons. First, according to this, every causal chain would not stretch along the timeline (all history would happen simultaneously). Second, it is possible that cause X generates an antecedent Y after a second. This is the definition of an antecedent event: if you wait a second, Y will happen. Therefore, there is no problem with the fact that within that second X happened and Y did not happen.
But regardless of all that, I don’t understand why simultaneous causation is different and what’s special about it. Why do you need it and what do you do with it?
I had a discussion with an atheist about infinite regression and these are his arguments:
“The principle of causality, as formulated by Rabbi Michael Avraham in the debate, and I quoted it here, says “everything has a cause”.
He does not assume that every event requires a prior cause, but that every event requires some cause.
This means that there will be an infinite regression of any causes, even if that means that they are all simultaneous.
If there is a cause that is simultaneous with its effect, how does this contradict the claim that this cause must also have its own cause?
Even if there is a cause that is “simultaneous with its effect”, this cause is still something.
And everything has a cause according to the principle of causality, then this thing also has a cause.
In other words, you have not brought a solution to the problem that the principle of causality requires in infinite regression.”
Simultaneous causation is different because logically I can prove it as a first cause and that was my goal.
It is not like an ordinary cause because an ordinary cause requires another cause before it.
So I basically reversed the analysis to answer his question because he argues strongly that the principle of causality requires that everything requires a cause.
The claim that the principle of causality does not apply to causes that are simultaneous with the effect could conflict with the principles of logic only in the case where we assume that every event requires a prior cause. On the other hand, we can reverse the analysis and say that every cause, even a cause that is simultaneous with the effect, is actually the result of another cause, since we expect there to be a cause for everything.
If we use the concept that every cause is actually the result of another cause, there is no contradiction here. That is, the claim described indicates that if we look at the cause as the result of another cause, and not as a prior cause, there is no logical contradiction with the principle of causality.
This is basically what he claimed:
The contradiction is between the claim that there is something that has no cause, and the principle of causality that requires that everything has a cause.
You can't choose when the principle of causality is true and when it is false.
Either this principle is true and then you can use it to say that the complexity of the universe has a cause.
Or this principle is false and then you can say that a "cause that is simultaneous with its effect" doesn't need a cause.
So I logically proved that a cause that is simultaneous with an effect also has a cause in order to reconcile the contradiction he claimed existed with a simultaneous cause that is itself, in his view, a "cause".
I have no problem with the ancient argument you presented in the debate, I just don't think he accepts it.
> According to this, any causal chain would not be stretched along the timeline (all history would happen simultaneously)
This conclusion is correct, only if we assume that events that have an “instantaneous” (or “infinitismal”) duration are the only events that exist. This is an absurd assumption. All that is necessary is that events that have a non-instantaneous duration can cause something to happen.
> It is possible that cause X causes cause Y after a second
Indeed, it is possible. I don't know anyone who would deny this. And…? The argument against which you argue is that there are events that are not like this, not that all events are not like this.
Chinese.
koryehavs is me, Rabbi. I'm trying to understand how it is possible to prove in a logical way that a simultaneous cause does not have its own cause, I didn't quite understand who you were addressing just now.
I'll try to give something clearer,
A simultaneous cause does not require its own cause since it is already fixed as a result of another cause. In other words, it is within the system of causes as part of another cause and therefore there is no need for another cause to exert its influence on it. This is based on the assumption that in the overall reality there is a system of causes that influence each other, and therefore a simultaneous cause is part of this whole and does not require another cause outside this system.
The argument that a simultaneous cause does not require its own cause is based on the assumption that it is already fixed as a result of another cause in the system of causes. In other words, when we look at a simultaneous cause with the effect, we assume that it is already structured and fixed in the overall system of causes, and therefore there is no need for another cause to exert its influence on it.
For example, suppose we have an event X and an event Y that occur at the same time and are considered simultaneous. The argument is that we must assume that there is a prior cause that connects X and Y and causes them to occur simultaneously. The cause that connects X and Y has already been fixed by the previous processes in the system of causes, and therefore there is no need for an additional cause for each event to explain its occurrence.
In this context, the argument is not trying to prove that there is no cause for everything, but that the cause is already within the general system of causes. This is the relative relationship that occurs between the different causes in the system of causes, and accordingly, it still has a cause that explains its existence.
If we return to the example of the relationships between particles in the quantum cycle, we can see that the cause of the simulation is already fixed by the general system of particles and processes in the quantum system. In this case, there is no need for an additional cause to explain the simulation that is occurring.
Therefore, the argument is that within the system of causes, a simultaneous cause is already fixed and therefore there is no need for an additional cause to exert its influence on it.
What I mean, of course, is that I started the thread "There's nothing new under the sun."
I didn't ask who it was, I asked what it was. I don't understand a word of this whole mess. So I suggest ending it here.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
