5. Egnor, Dillahunty Dispute the Basic Causes Behind the Universe – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

At this point in the Does God exist? debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as a former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that the propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnors turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinass First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).

No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:

A partial transcript (beginning at 45:00 min) and notes follow:

Michael Egnor: Okay. So lets start with the first argument, Aquinass First Way, okay? Aquinas and this actually comes from Aristotle observed that change happens in nature. Which wed all agree, change happens.

Michael Egnor: The Aristotelian understanding of change is that there is a state called potency, things can have the possibility of changing. And then theres a state of actuality

Matt Dillahunty: That is about something coming into its potential of being. But go ahead. [00:45:30]

Michael Egnor: So there are possibilities and there are actualities, and they dont cross over. Something thats possible by definition is not yet actual, and something that is actual is no longer possible, its actual. Causal chains in nature involve sequences of possible states of being that become actual states of being. and theres a chain that goes down, and thats how causes happen. [00:46:00]

Matt Dillahunty: I thought we were starting with the first one, and now youve switched into causation, which is the second.

Michael Egnor: Thats a very good point, because they do overlap. That is, that the First Way focuses on change, on

Matt Dillahunty: One could argue, as many have, that at least the first three of Thomas Aquinass [Five] Ways are all kind of summarized in cosmological arguments in general. [00:46:30]

Michael Egnor: Right, exactly. And all the cosmological arguments depend on the impossibility of infinite regress in an instrumental series of causes in nature. And instrumental causes are a series of causes where the causes have to continuously exist for the whole process to happen. Again, the example that Aristotle used was pushing a rock with a stick. And the stick is the instrumental series of causes, that is, its this object that goes from your hand to the rock. [00:47:00]

Note: Infinite regress means an infinite series of causes backward in time. Philosophers have not typically accepted such an explanation of our universe because the very fact that we exist shows that some causes (those which would result in our not existing) have not in fact happened. Thus, backward in time, some limits exist.

Michael Egnor: His argument was that no matter how long you make the stick, no matter how far back you make an infinite regress, you need a hand, you need something that is purely actual to be the prime mover to get the process starting. Everything cant just be possible. There has to be something that is purely actual to start the process, and that is what all men call God. [00:47:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Except that thats not what all men call God. I know that Aristotle says that, I know thats part of that. Clearly

Michael Egnor: Aristotle didnt say that. Aquinas did.

Matt Dillahunty: Sorry. My bad. Thank you for the correction. This notion that this is what everybody calls God doesnt mean that that is in fact God, and it doesnt mean that this understanding, the summary that were doing. Carl Sagan famously, in his notes, [00:48:00] when viewing a claim about an infinite regress, and this assertion that we cant have an infinite regress, because if we did, we would never be able to stop asking

But this notion that you must have an infinite causal chain, and there must be a first cause is basically an argument from analogy. We are going to look at the universe and how things operate, and heres the causal chain, or here is the action chain, or the mover chain. And when we look at that, we summarize it in a way that we understand it. But that doesnt mean that the claims that we make about it are necessarily the case. [00:48:30]

And so causality is necessarily something that requires time, as does existence. It doesnt mean anything for anything to exist for no time, and it doesnt mean for something, to say that theres causality absent time, because this is one thing following another. Its necessarily temporal. And so even under a model like Aquinass, or under other models where they suggest that there is a God that exists outside of space and time, there is no explanation for how and why, what that even means, or how it can be a meaningful thing. [00:49:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Its like asking what happened before the Big Bang. That may be a nonsensical question if, based on the models that we have, time begins with the Big Bang. And so the best that this can do is say, Given this understanding of this model, it seems that there would need to be some sort of first cause, but it doesnt tell us anything about that first cause. And to presume that it must be a thinking agent that is somehow absent time has a number of problems with it, not the least of which is nobodys bothered to demonstrate that that is in fact what is here, rather than [00:50:00]

One of the questions that we were going to get to at some point is What caused the laws of nature? And you said, specifically, the mind that created them. I dont understand how someone could come to the conclusion that it mustve been created by a mind. Because the laws of nature are descriptive. Yes, they existed, the truth of them existed before there were thinking human beings within the universe and they existed before there were any thinking beings, as far as we can tell. But the physical laws are things We describe them, but thats us putting our language on something that is. Chemistry is, biology is. Physics is the basis for all of that. And to say that physics had to come from someone, or somewhere, is an assertion that I havent seen a demonstration for. [00:51:00]

Michael Egnor: Nothing youve said has anything to do with Aquinass First Way. Change is not dependent on time. In fact, Aquinas

Matt Dillahunty: How can you have change without time?

Michael Egnor: Oh, sorry, causation has nothing to do with time.

Matt Dillahunty: How can you have causation without time? One thing follows another, thats a causal chain, there must be some time where one thing precedes another.

Michael Egnor: No, the hylomorphic metaphysics of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas understand causes and effects as simultaneous. [00:51:30]

Matt Dillahunty: There is a model for simultaneous causation, which actually hasnt been demonstrated.

Michael Egnor: No, no, the causes and effects are understood as happening at the same moment, at the same instant. There are other ways of understanding cause, for example, Humes way of understanding it, that is dependent on time, is notoriously a very inadequate way of understanding cause and effect. Humes problem with understanding cause and effect is that he brought time into it. [00:52:00]

But nothing youve said really has anything to do with Aquinass First Way, and the impossibility of infinite regress in an instrumental series of change.

Matt Dillahunty: How do you demonstrate the impossibility of infinite regress?

Michael Egnor: You demonstrate it by the fact that potency, possibility, is not actuality. And if you have an infinite series of possibilities in the past, with no actuality to start it, then nothing really exists. No causal chain can actually happen if everything is simply possible. Thats a logical conclusion from the argument. And in fact, its a scientific argument, meaning its an argument that has the same structure as any theory in science. That is, you take events that happen in the natural world change, or the redshift to discover the Big Bang and you follow a logical sequence to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon. The most reasonable explanation for the existence of change [00:53:00]

Matt Dillahunty: No, thats nonsense. Thats abductive argument.

Michael Egnor: Science and proofs of Gods existence follow the same logical structure. You take things that you observe in reality, you infer the best explanation for those things that you observe, thats what natural theology is. Thats also natural philosophy, which is science. Its all the same logical structure. [00:53:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Thats not the same. I dont want to get off into a sidetrack between inductive and abductive arguments, because I think science in many cases relies on both of them, but largely is abductive. But if you begin with an observation, and you infer the most likely explanation, you dont get to include undemonstrated things in your candidate explanations. If we find a dead body, we start listing off, What are the probably explanations for this dead body? We dont get to include magic in that explanation. [00:54:00]

Michael Egnor: Correct. So could you explain to me what is the singularity that caused the Big Bang?

Matt Dillahunty: I have no idea.

Note: The Big Bang singularity is the point at which In the 1960s, Hawking and the Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose proved that when space-time bends steeply enough, such as inside a black hole or perhaps during the Big Bang, it inevitably collapses, curving infinitely steeply toward a singularity, where Einsteins equations break down and a new, quantum theory of gravity is needed. Generally, at a singularity, conventional explanations break down. Quanta

Michael Egnor: But thats a scientific conclusion

Matt Dillahunty: Yes, and Im not a scientist, and the fact that something is a scientific conclusion

Michael Egnor: Scientists cant

Matt Dillahunty: Do I get to finish my thought at all?

Michael Egnor: Well, yeah, but your thought is nonsense. Scientists dont have

Matt Dillahunty: Oh, well thank you for cutting right to the chase for everybody, if were just going to

Michael Egnor: Scientists dont have an explanation for the singularity, because a singularity is not definable. Thats the whole point of it. A singularity is a solution to the equations of general relativity, where there is division by zero. That means its undefined. What led to the Big Bang was a singularity. Thats widely accepted in science, except nobody knows what a singularity is. A singularity isnt even a natural thing. So cosmology, basic physics, uses inferences to things that are supernatural. A singularity is not in nature, and science uses it routinely. Theres nothing wrong with transcending nature to explain events within nature. We do it all the time. Thats what science is all about. [00:55:30]

Note: Division by zero leads to undefined numbers so calculations cannot be pursued beyond that point (a singularity).

Matt Dillahunty: No, actually, you dont. You dont get to transcend what is demonstrable as a candidate explanation. You have to show that this is a candidate explanation. And so, when were talking about Big Bang cosmology, when you say, What caused the Big Bang? And I say, I dont know, Im not convinced that anyone knows at this point. And the fact that we dont have an answer or an explanation for something, does not mean that a supernatural explanation becomes plausible as a replacement while we dont have that.

Its the reason why we used to think Thor or Zeus threw lightning bolts, and now we dont. Any time we dont have a scientific explanation for something something that is grounded in evidence and observation, something that is testable and detectable we dont, then, just get to say, Ah, theres not currently a natural explanation, therefore a supernatural one will do.

You would still have to demonstrate the truth of that supernatural explanation, and we currently dont have any way, unless you know of one, and clearly you at least Well, I dont know how anybody could demonstrate the truth of any supernatural explanation, because all of them are God of the gaps in the sense that, Heres something we dont know, were going to insert a supernatural explanation for. [00:56:50]

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If youre saying its natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, youre not talking to a cosmologist, but the

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say its natural?

[Things became quite animated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] Ive tried to answer it, every time I open my Say one more [bleep]

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? Thats Egnors accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates incredibly valuable, he is despite much urging making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about Gods existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. Thats partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

Go here to see the original:
5. Egnor, Dillahunty Dispute the Basic Causes Behind the Universe - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence