Q&A: Is Belief in God Rational
Is Belief in God Rational
Question
Hello Rabbi, I have to say that I watched your debate with Aviv Franco, and your views really intrigued me—to the point that I watched that debate 6 times.
I built a new argument, a bit different, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion about it.
Here is a common argument for the existence of God connected to causality:
– Everything in the universe has a cause.
– An infinite causal regress is impossible.
– Therefore there is a first cause for the creation of the universe, and its name is God.
If we assume that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, a problem arises for us:
The principle of causality requires an infinite regress of causes if it is correct, since everything has a cause.
But the first thing in the causal chain has no cause, because if it had a cause it would not be the first in the chain.
So an internal contradiction is created here in the argument.
So in order to arrive at a first cause, we will use a cause that is simultaneous (occurring at the same time) with the effect, as is also accepted in science in the quantum domain.
But the problem that the principle of causality requires an infinite regress still has not been solved.
Because even if there is a cause that is simultaneous with its effect, that cause is still some thing.
And everything has a cause according to the principle of causality, so that thing too has a cause.
So in order to solve this internal contradiction, I argue that David Hume’s principle of causality 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 could enter into contradiction with the principles of logic only if we assume that every event requires a prior cause. On the other hand, one can reverse the analysis and say that every cause, even one simultaneous with the effect, is actually 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 actually the effect of another cause, there is no contradiction here. It indicates that between a specific cause and effect there is a relational connection, while the cause itself is the effect of something else. That is, the claim described here says that if we look at the cause as the effect of another cause, and not as a prior cause, there is no logical contradiction with the principle of causality.
When we consider an event that is the effect of a cause simultaneous with the effect, we are simply using the theory of simultaneous causality to explain reality. David Hume’s principle of causality relates to everything as a source for every event. That is, anything that can cause something can be the source of some event, even if we do not have full knowledge of how that cause itself comes into being. It is permitted 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 Hume’s principle of causality.
This principle allows us to deal with the complexity of the world and to build rational views based on natural phenomena and social reality. Therefore, the claim that Hume’s principle of causality does not apply to causes simultaneous with the effect is not based on a logical contradiction and remains within the rational domain, since we use the principle of causality to understand the world around us.
Also 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:
One can argue that simultaneous causes occur in the quantum domain, when particles can be in many states of existence at the same time, and therefore they are in multiple states at once. In a similar way, one can distinguish between the causal relation of cause and effect in simultaneous causality and Hume’s principle of causality.
And in summary:
– The principle of causality assumes that everything has a cause.
– Causes simultaneous with the effect are considered causes within the framework of the theory of simultaneous causality.
– The principle of causality serves 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 valid.
As became clear in the analysis of the logical principle of causality, one may conclude that everything needs a cause, even if we do not fully understand its causal process. On this basis, 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 also rational, because it uses a logical conception 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 God as a first cause does not contradict the principles of causality but rather constitutes a rational extension of them, making use of modern scientific and philosophical insights.
Answer
I didn’t understand anything here. Neither what is wrong with the standard argument nor what you are proposing. What is there about simultaneous causality that changes anything as compared to ordinary causality?
There is an ancient claim that all causality must be simultaneous, because otherwise there is a moment when the cause has occurred and the effect has not. But that is not a valid claim, for several reasons. First, according to that, every causal chain would not stretch along the time axis at all (all of history would happen simultaneously). Second, it is possible that cause X produces effect Y after one second. That is the definition of the resulting event: that if you wait one second, Y will happen. So there is no problem with the fact that during that second X happened and Y did not.
But independently of all that, I do not understand why simultaneous causality is different or what is special about it. Why do you need it, and what are you doing with it.
Discussion on Answer
> According to that, every causal chain would not stretch along the time axis at all (all of history would happen simultaneously)
That inference is correct only if we assume that events with an instantaneous (or “infinitesimal”) duration are the only events that exist. That is an absurd assumption. All that is needed is that events that have non-instantaneous duration be able to cause something to happen.
> It is possible that cause X produces effect Y after one second
Indeed, it is possible. I don’t know anyone who would reject that. And… ? The claim you are arguing against is that there are events that are not like that, not that all events are not like that.
Chinese.
koryehavs is me, Rabbi. I’m trying to understand how one can prove logically that a simultaneous cause has no cause of its own; I didn’t really understand whom you were addressing just now.
I’ll try to give something clearer,
A simultaneous cause does not require a cause of its own because it is already fixed as the effect of another cause. In other words, it is located within the system of causes as part of another cause, and therefore there is no need for an additional cause to activate its influence on it. This is based on the assumption that in the overall reality there exists a system of causes that affect one another, and therefore a simultaneous cause is part of that whole and does not require an additional cause outside that system.
The argument that a simultaneous cause does not require a cause of its own is based on the parallel that it is already fixed as the effect of another cause in the system of causes. In other words, when we look at a simultaneous cause together with the effect, we assume that it is already built in and fixed within the overall system of causes, and therefore there is no need for an additional cause to activate its effect on it.
For example, let us assume we have event X and event Y that happen at the same time and are considered simultaneous. The argument is that we should assume there is a prior cause that connects X and Y and brings them about 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 in order to explain its occurrence.
In this context, the argument is not trying to prove that not everything has a cause, but rather that the cause is already found within the general system of causes. This is the relational connection that takes place among the various causes in the causal system, and on that basis it still has a cause that explains its existence.
If we return to the example of relationships between particles in the quantum cycle, one can see that the cause of the simulation is already fixed by the general system of particles and processes in the quantum system. In that case, there is no need for an additional cause to explain the simulation that occurs.
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 activate its influence on it.
What I mean, of course, is that I’m the one who opened the thread, “There Is Nothing New Under the Sun.”
I didn’t ask who it is, I asked what it is. I don’t understand a word of this whole jumble. So I suggest ending it here.
I had a discussion with an atheist about infinite regress, and these were his claims:
“The principle of causality, as formulated by Rabbi Michael Abraham in the debate, and which I quoted here, says: ‘Everything has a cause.’
It does not assume that every event requires a prior cause, but only that every event requires some cause.
That means there will be an infinite regress of causes of some sort, even if that means they are all simultaneous.
If there is a cause that is simultaneous with its effect, how does that contradict the claim that this cause too must have a cause of its own?
Even if there is a cause that is ‘simultaneous with its effect,’ that cause is still some thing.
And everything has a cause according to the principle of causality, so that thing too has a cause.
In other words, you have not provided a solution to the problem that the principle of causality requires an infinite regress.”
Simultaneous causality is different because logically I can prove it as a first cause, and that was my goal.
It is not like a regular cause, because a regular cause requires another cause before it.
So I basically reversed the analysis in order to answer his question, because he insists that the principle of causality requires that everything needs a cause.
The claim that the principle of causality does not apply to causes that are simultaneous with the effect could enter into contradiction with the principles of logic only if we assume that every event requires a prior cause. On the other hand, one can reverse the analysis and say that every cause, even one simultaneous with the effect, is actually the effect of another cause, since we expect there to be a cause for everything.
If we use the concept that every cause is actually the effect of another cause, there is no contradiction here. In other words, the claim described says that if we look at the cause as the effect of another cause, and not as a prior cause, there is no logical contradiction with the principle of causality.
This is basically what he argued:
The contradiction is between the claim that there exists something with no cause, and the principle of causality, which requires that everything have a cause.
You cannot choose when the principle of causality is true and when it is false.
Either this principle is true, and then one can use it to say that the complexity of the universe has a cause.
Or this principle is false, and then one can say that ‘a cause simultaneous with its effect’ does not need a cause.
So I proved logically that even a simultaneous cause with an effect has a cause, in order to settle the contradiction that he claimed exists with a simultaneous cause, which in his view is itself a ’cause.’
I have no problem with the ancient claim you presented in the debate; I just don’t think he accepts it.