The First Cause Problem

An article by Marcelo Gleiser at Big Think is titled The First Cause Problem but it's not until Gleiser gets toward the end of the piece that he actually mentions the problem and even then he spends only a couple of sentences on it. Nevertheless, there are a couple of interesting things about his brief mention of the problem that are worth talking about.

The term "first cause" refers to the initial cause of the universe, the impetus for the Big Bang. According to what's called the Standard Model of cosmology, the universe came into being from a tiny point smaller than a single subatomic particle of near-infinite density. This point is called a singularity. In an unimaginably brief time (10^-33 sec.) it "inflated" to about the size of a grain of sand and then began a more modest expansion which continues to this day.

These first phases of the creation of the universe would've seemed instantaneous to an observer like us.

But where did the singularity come from. Here's what Gleiser writes:

The first cause — the cause that must be uncaused and that unleashed all other causes — lies beyond the reach of scientific methodology as we know it. This doesn’t mean that we must invoke supernatural causes to fill the gap of our ignorance.

A supernatural cause doesn’t explain in the way that scientific theories do; supernatural divine intervention is based on faith and not on data. It’s a personal choice, not a scientific one. It only helps those who believe.

So, at the end of a lengthy article purporting to discuss the first cause problem, Gleiser tells us that the problem has no scientific or naturalistic answer. Okay, but his rationale for excluding supernatural causes is unconvincing.

He states that a supernatural cause for the universe is based on faith, not on data, but this is not correct. He himself provides a lot of data for accepting a supernatural cause in his first sentence where he infers that the first cause must be uncaused and that it unleashed all other causes.

If this is so it follows that the first cause must have at least the following attributes: Since it's uncaused it's self-existent and non-contingent (i.e. it's logically necessary); it must also transcend the universe itself since it's the cause of the universe. It must therefore be non-spatial, non-temporal, and immaterial. Finally, it must be unimaginably powerful since it "unleashed" all other causes and is the "creator" of an enormously vast universe.

In other words, from the data that Gleiser acknowledges it appears that the first cause of the universe has many of the attributes of God.

If we take him one step further and consider the fact that the universe seems to be purposely fine-tuned for living things we may add to the list of data that the first cause seems to be both highly intelligent and purposeful (i.e. personal).

None of this requires anymore faith to accept than ais required of scientists to accept the implications of many of their hypotheses. If it's scientifically legitimate for scientists to infer the existence of unobservable particles, fields, and even other universes from what they can observe in their particle accelerators, telescopes and mathematical equations, why is it not scientifically legitimate to infer the existence of a being that we can't observe from the existence of evidence that we can observe?

The only reason for ruling out such a step is an irrational prejudice against the existence of a being that embodies the traits listed above.