A number of philosophers came out with fatal criticisms, the most severe being that of David Hume. He introduced the notion that the universe could have happened by chance rather than by design.

But how could this be? Wouldn't it be incredibly unlikely that all the atoms in the universe accidentally or randomly came together to form what we see today? This is why the theist frequently argues that the probability of the world coming into existence as it is with all its complexities is so remote that the notion of it all happening by chance is close to ridiculous. Only design by a supreme Architect could account for the overcoming of such great odds.

Is it unlikely though? Given an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter in the universe, the probability of the atoms which constitute this region of the universe coming together in the combination in which we now find them in a finite amount of time is indeed an extremely remote probability. However, given an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, the probability of the atoms which constitute this region of the universe coming together in the combination in which we now find them in an infinite amount of time is almost 100% certain. A practical example demonstrates the principle:

If I were to empty a container of rice onto the kitchen floor, each grain would randomly come to rest somewhere on the floor surface. If I repeated this process thousands of times,eventually the grains may fall so as to create a pattern of some kind. Taken to the extreme, if I repeatedly dropped the rice onto the floor, on one of those occasions it would form a pattern that spells out my name. It may take years for this to happen, it may in fact take thousands of years. However, the longer I have to repeat the process, the more likely it is that this will occur. It follows that given an infinite amount of time, the probability of this happening is almost certain (The laws of probability state that it can only ever approach 100%. It can never actually reach 100%). Likewise, given an infinite amount of time, the atoms of the universe would eventually form the combination we see today.

Interestingly this follows in the case of there being an infinite amount of space, matter and time and in the case of there being a finite amount of space and matter but an infinite amount of time. It would not follow in the case of there being an infinite amount of space and time yet a finite amount of matter, nor the case of there being a finite amount of time.

This is a very strong and almost mathematically conclusive argument that God is not needed for the design of the universe. Rather, the laws of probability can be held to be all that is necessary. The theist's argument was further weakened by scientists such as Darwin who claimed that the process of random mutation and natural selection was responsible for the complexities we observe in the animal kingdom rather than the purposeful design previously supposed.

It is reasonable, therefore, to imagine the universe to be infinite in space and time with a never-ending series of "big-bangs", one of which created this present universe. So it can be said that though the probability of this particular universe coming into existence at any one point in time is extremely low, the probability of this particular universe coming into existence at some time is extremely high Presumably, if this particular universe had been much different, we would not be here to see it anyway.

This mathematically, hence logically, strong argument appears particularly persuasive when compared to the nebulous argument from design which is supported merely by analogies based on experience.

Chance only ?

A number of theists fought back with refined Teleological arguments. A.E. Taylor argued that nature reveals an anticipatory order; that is, it plans for its own preservation. This is evidence, he said, for design rather than pure random selection. R.E.D. Clark basing his defence on the second law of thermodynamics, said that the universe must be slowly "running down" and can therefore not be eternal. Since this process cannot be reversed, he claimed it showed advanced planning and design by the entity that began the whole process. However, this argument goes against what we now know about the amount of matter and energy in the universe remaining constant (E=MC2). Most other defenders concentrated on arguments based on the improbability of the universe coming about by chance, which, as has already been explained, is not only invalid but is itself unlikely.

The Death Blow to the Argument for the Existence of God from Design.

David Hume, having seriously wounded the theist's argument by introducing the notion of chance as a likely cause of the universe, dealt five further blows in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". Of these five, only two hold significant weight:

The first argument involved questioning "the weakness and remoteness of the analogy between the products of human design and the works of nature, and the resulting vagueness of any conclusions that can be drawn from that analogy" . Though the analogy has some value, it is invalid to relate an example of a watch with that of a rock and thereby deduce that since the watch was designed by man, so must the rock have been designed by God. The argument is taking the analogy beyond reason. Additionally, while we can see the watch and its maker, we cannot see the rock and its maker.

The second argument, and perhaps the strongest, states that it is logically invalid to argue the case for a supreme creator (who lies beyond the world) from experiences and observations (of this world). There is no way to logically link something unknown that lies beyond the world with something known in the world. Experience is the boundary of knowledge. As Kant states, the best the Teleological argument can do is merely suggest the possibility of a Grand Architect.It cannot provide evidence that the matter of the universe was created.
Perhaps it always existed. God may merely have been an architect playing with a universe that already existed? After all, this is the most that the analogy of human manufacture could indicate. He would then not be omnipotent.

The Teleological argument is also limited by the fact that it cannot conclude that the universe was made, or in fact designed, by only one god. The clock analogy used by the theist equally allows the possibility of there being many gods.

What to make of all this ?

The Teleological argument has some value in indicating the possibility of an architect, but falls far short of being useful to the theist who wants to prove the existence of an omnipotent, perfect, loving Creator. Clearly, it does not take the theist as far as he would like to go.

The real possibility, even probability, that the world may be the product of random events and the support given by solid mathematics, causes the Teleological argument to look less than persuasive. The inability to connect logically the observed world with a God beyond the world and the incapacity to determine any of God's characteristics, renders the argument from design less than useful to the theist.

There may be hope yet for the theist. Even if the universe is randomly formed and there appears to be no design behind it, we do see every day cause and effect in operation. The law of cause and effect demands that there must be a first cause in any chain of cause and effect. The whole universe seems to be a huge mass of causes and effects, from "big bangs" down to the interactions of subatomic particles. Therefore, if one were to wind all these chains of causes and effects back, they must originate in one almighty cause. That is, there must be a First Cause.
This we call God !

The logical argument for the First Cause began with Plato who reasoned for a first mover of the world. He began by stating the obvious: every day we observe things moving. Whatever moves is either moved by another or is self-moved. If a thing is self-moved, it must be eternal, or else there would never be movement of any kind in the first place. This self-mover is known to us as God.

This argument has since been refined by many people (Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Developments. Augustine: on Free will. Alfarabi: A History of Medieval Philosophy. Avicenna and Aquinas: Summa Theologica ). The common thread is that they begin with the world and observable change, and argue back to God, the uncaused Cause of the world.

The argument for causation therefore overcomes the problems of the Teleological argument in that it now does not matter that the world was created by random interactions. What matters is that an intelligent, independent First Mover is self-evidently necessary which is proof of the existence of God.

Many criticised the Cosmological argument, but none so ruthlessly as David Hume in the 18th century (ref: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion).The first of his criticisms is that of theists arguing back to an infinite Cause from the observation of finite causes. He said it was only reasonable for one to argue a sufficient cause for a particular effect. Since all effects we know of are finite, it is reasonable to argue for finite causes. Anything more than that would be an invalid jump of logic. Secondly, he argued that an infinite series of causes and effects is possible. What is more, he argued that a system of eternal series of causes and effects cannot itself have a cause, because this would fall outside time and time is necessary in order for a cause to occur.

Hume also argued that there is a need for causes to explain the effects seen in the universe, but the universe taken as a whole does not need a cause to explain it - it always has existed. After all, he claimed, if one can state that God has always existed, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe has always existed? Likewise, if the universe must have a cause, then logically God must also have a cause. Stopping the regress of causes at God is an arbitrary decision.

There are a number of problems with David Hume's arguments, the first being the illogical conclusion that it is possible for there to be an infinite regress of causes. The following example clearly demonstrates why.

In the case of a coal train, one carriage pulls the carriage next to it and so on. No matter how long the train is, there must be an engine at the front, or the train cannot move. Even if the train is of infinite length, it must have an engine at the front. Clearly, an infinitely long train of carriages will still not move without an engine. Likewise, a train that is circular, with the last carriage connected to the back of the first, will not move without an engine - a first mover.

Therefore, though some things may always have existed, nothing would be moving now if something had not first moved it. Since we observe very large movements in so many things, especially on a galactic scale, it is reasonable to postulate that the First Mover is indeed very powerful. It is also reasonable to hold this First Mover to be God.

Secondly, Hume unreasonably argues that one can only logically argue a finite cause for a finite effect. If everything in the universe is finite, this implies that each thing has a beginning and an end. This being so, there must have been a time when each thing did not exist which implies that at one time, nothing existed. Since something cannot come from nothing, yet today we see that there is something, this clearly indicates that something must not be finite. At least one thing must be infinite, have always existed, something that is uncreated. This must be the First Mover. Admittedly this argument allows for there to be many uncreated first movers. However, the point of this argument is that there must be at least one infinite, uncreated thing. As Sartre (Being and Nothingness) and Schopenhauer (The Ontological Argument) argued, to cause oneself is logically impossible.

At this point, things would look good for the theist in that there must be a First Mover who is uncreated and infinite, except for the issue of dependence brought forward by Hume. This states that to imply that there is a cause and effect, there must be a proven relationship of dependence by the thing being moved on the thing which is the cause. If this relationship of dependence cannot be demonstrated, then the cause and effect relationship cannot be substantiated.

The central theme of Hume's philosophy is that this relationship between cause and effect cannot be substantiated by empirical observation. The following example demonstrates Hume's point:

In a row of dominos, the pushing of the first domino topples the next domino which in turn pushes the next, etc. until the last domino falls. Most people would assume that the cause of each domino's fall was the falling of the previous domino, that there is a necessary connection between the two events. Hence, the falling of the domino (reaction) was dependent on, and necessarily connected to, the fall of the previous domino (cause). Hume says that most people make this assumption based on experience of falling dominos. Many people would be willing to state this relationship as a logical formula such as "a falling domino will, after hitting the side of "the adjacent domino, cause it to fall".

However, Hume goes on to say that one cannot know that this will happen the same every time. For instance, in strong wind, under the sea and in space, we know that this will not happen. A gust of wind could cancel out the effect of the first domino's fall; under the sea, the dominos may float; in space, the dominos cannot fall. Additionally, someone may have glued a domino to the table. Consequently, a casual observer, who has seen dominos fall in the same way hundreds of times in the past, cannot without doubt, predict accurately that the falling of the first domino will cause the last domino to fall. Additionally, though one thing regularly follows another, such as night and day, one does not necessarily cause the other. In conclusion, Hume states that though one can find an "invariant conjunction" between causes and events based on experience, one cannot logically validate a "causal connection".

The result of this is that the dependency of the effect on the cause cannot be substantiated. Therefore, it is invalid to link causes to previous causes and to trace all causes back to a First Cause. In Hume's mind, the Cosmological Argument is rendered invalid.

This seems to block the theist at the front door. However, a closer look at what Hume is actually saying shows that his argument, though it has some legitimacy, does not render the Cosmological Argument useless at all.

Another way of looking at Hume's principle of causality is to say that since people can't know everything there is to know about a particular situation, there is no way a person can take into account every action and reaction concerning that situation. Therefore, it is impossible for a person to predict what will happen in any particular circumstance. It is therefore impossible to state anything regarding the observable world (causes and reactions) as a logical formula.

It is true that one cannot be absolutely sure about anything unless, of course, one is God Who knows everything. Kant takes this further by saying that we can also never know everything there is to know about everyday objects we see and touch. We are limited by our sensing apparatus and our limited intellect. In conclusion, we as humans don't know very much about the universe as it is and are unable to make definite predictions about any particular cause and effect based on previous experience.

However, probability does seem to have a predictive capability. How can this be so if there is no linkage between causes and events? A brief study of the nature of probability reveals some interesting insights into what can and cannot be known.

The rules of probability were only formalised as recently as the 17th century and only last century has been applied to many of the sciences (For example, the central Limit Theorem states that the sum of a large number of independent and identically distributed random variables has, under certain general conditions, an approximately Normal Distribution.) Probability has remarkable predictive capabilities. Today, many complex real-world situations can be simulated on a computer. By repeating experiments billions of times, computers can very accurately determine the probabilities associated with a particular cause and effect. Any sensible person could not deny that there appears very strong evidence of definite linkages between cause and effect. I am sure that if Hume were alive today, he would not stand in the way of a speeding train or jump off a cliff shouting: "one cannot possibly know what will happen this time".

It is evident that probability is a good predictor and can give insight into likely outcomes, but why can it not be used to predict outcomes accurately and definitely? The following example explains the definition of probability in the context of knowledge.

If one throws a coin into the air, the coin will eventually land on the floor - heads or tails. Providing the coin is not interfered with, lands on its edge, is flipped in space, etc., the probability of the coin landing on tails is 50%. This can, of course, be supported by empirical observation. Tossing a coin many thousands of times will invariably lead to approximately half the tosses resulting in a "tails" outcome. Each time I toss the coin, I know that there will be one of two possible outcomes. So, I know the first cause - the tossing of the coin, and I know the two possible outcomes - heads or tails. What I don't know are the many millions of causes and effects that will occur between the coin leaving my hand and its stopping on the ground. If I did understand every cause and effect, then I would know the amount of force exerted on the coin by my hand as I threw it up; the degree of friction of the coin on my hand and as it passed through the air; the effect of the air moving over the coin as it spun; the billions of reactions with molecules of dust and gases; and finally as it hit the ground, the flexibility of the coin's metal, the resonance effect of the ground, the minute variations in the texture of the surface of the coin and the ground, etc.

Now, if I understood all these things, it could be possible to throw the coin in such a way that I could make it land as I chose. If I wanted it to land on tails, I would know how to throw it based on my thorough understanding of the complexitiesinvolved. Now, if you found out that I had totalcontrol of how I threw the coin and fully understood the complexities of tossing a coin, then the fact my next toss resulted in a "heads" would not be considered a factor of probability, but rather an act of deliberate action on my part. My knowledge of the intermediate causes and effects cancelled out probability.

Therefore, probability can be redefined as the ignorance of intermediate causes and effects when the first cause and the final outcomes are known.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, if God exists and God knows and understands everything, then the concept of probability is merely reduced to the realms of human ignorance.

Startling discoveries, that Hume could not have dreamed of, have been made in just the last fifty years. Scientists and mathematicians have found grounds to support the theory that causes and effects in the universe are indeed necessarily linked. For instance, the tendency of the natural world towards disorder has been formulated under the heading "Chaos Theory". Mitchell Feigen Baum determined certain consistent patterns of rate doubling as a system tends towards chaos . Applying such principles, the path of a dust particle through turbulent water can be accurately predicted. How could this be so if there is no linkage between cause and effect?

The laws of physics, chemistry and many of the sciences may not be perfectly accurate and may be added to or corrected in the future, but so far, they have proved to be very successful and provide strong evidence of uniformity in the world. In fact, scientists are now concentrating on the area of quantum mechanics where small discrepancies to these "laws" can be detected. The work, called "Hidden Variables Theories" involves finding the missing causes and effects at the sub-atomic level which would describe absolutely the state of a given system.

In conclusion, probability offers an excellent predictive capability that can only be so because the world exhibits a degree of uniformity - that is, a cause and effect events are linked. Furthermore, probability, the degree of human ignorance, can be reduced as human knowledge of causes and effects is increased. It follows that perfect knowledge and understanding of the first and intermediary causes and effects eliminate probability altogether. Therefore, contrary to Hume's proposition (that events are not linked), if all causes and effects could be known and understood, they could be traced back to the First Cause (or first causes) which, as previously demonstrated, must exist.

Where does this leave the theist? He has determined that there must be a First Cause or causes, but that is all. The Cosmological Argument does not allow the theist to take that next step of linking a personal God with the First Cause or causes. It does not indicate that the First Cause or causes even had to be a creator as some things may always have existed. Clearly, the argument falls far short of where the theist wants to be.

Perhaps the answer is to be found in the Ontological Argument...

Hamza Benamar

This article is the sole proprety of Al Jarida Al Maghribia and its author. Any partial or total reproduction is prohibited without our previous consent