Q&A: The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
Question
Hello Rabbi. I also wanted to ask: even if I accept induction as a basic assumption and the law of causality, is it really correct that matter itself has a cause? One could understand that our search for a cause applies only to familiar things, such as various combinations or phenomena, but regarding the very existence of matter, we have no intuitive grasp at all that it did not exist from eternity.
All this assumes that I do not accept the descriptions of the Big Bang. (As you wrote in God Plays Dice, that this affects the cosmological argument in this context….)
Answer
In my opinion, the very existence of matter itself also cries out for explanation. It is not something eternal, and it must have a cause.
Discussion on Answer
Induction is no better grounded than causality. Moreover, there is no induction here either, because it is impossible to observe causality even in a single case.
I didn’t fully understand. I agree that induction is not better grounded, but it is an intuition that simply exists for me. But regarding causality, I’m saying that it exists for me only because I encounter it, and I encounter causality in various phenomena. But regarding the very existence of matter, I’m not sure I have an intuition that it has a cause.
Does the intuition of causality come on its own? Maybe it comes to us only because we have induction that things that happen are connected to other things, and that therefore is what we call a cause. But in principle, the intuition of causality does not exist, and therefore it would also not exist in the context of the existence of matter.
In other words, a person who grew up alone and never saw cause and effect in his life would not think that causality exists. We, who have seen cause and effect, assume that other things also have a cause because induction is an intuition that we certainly do assume. But from where do we get that matter itself has a cause?