Theoretical cosmologist, Sean Carroll, has presented one of the best, if not the best (from a physicist’s perspective), defenses of naturalism that is currently available. I have argued that Carroll’s attempt to avoid the implications of the causal principle for the origin of the universe is a rational inquiry-stopper, and his mathematical attempt to avoid a beginning to the universe fails when applied to reality. We are left, therefore, face-to-face with the logical implications of a beginning to the universe.
Let us call the entirety of physical reality, ‘nature’.
1. The cause of nature is either natural or supernatural
2. The cause of nature cannot be natural
3. Therefore, the cause of nature is supernatural
The demand of cold, hard logic to avoid the circular fallacy makes (2) necessarily true and (1) is a true dichotomy, therefore (3) logically follows.
Some mistakenly think that any argument supporting the existence of God is, automatically, a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ argument. Others might ask, ‘what caused the supernatural cause of nature?’. Of course, that question concedes the argument above, but we can go further than that. Since time is a physical property of nature, logic dictates that the cause of time must have been independent of time if we wish to avoid the circular fallacy.
We can, therefore, continue the above argument ….
4. The cause of time must have been either dependent or independent of time.
5. It is logically impossible for the cause of time to have been dependent upon time.
6. Therefore, the cause of time must have been timeless/eternal.
7. It is logically impossible to cause a timeless entity to come into existence.
8. Therefore, the cause of nature is supernatural, eternal and uncaused.
Elegant in its logical strength and simplicity.
Here is an entertaining, creative short video (just over 3 minutes) on this subject.
Comments are open until 30 days after initial blog post.