I think you are right. We have a evolved away from oral cultures, perhaps with our dependence on recorded media, be it books, columns like that of Trajan, or computers. The length of our cultural memory has continually shortened.
2 Likes
I haven’t though about it like this. Obviously as a sympathiser of BL I don’t do god-of-the-gaps!
Agree on all points and TBH didn’t think much about his arguments in the first place as they seemed extremely biased and outdated but thanks for further clarification.
Regarding bouncing cosmology… I’ve read the article but as always I keep wondering whether this is provable or is this another multiverse kind of thing? It looks like there’s opposition to it and not just from Christian quarters.
Sure, and I’m interested to have further discussion whenever you find time.
Best wishes, Marta
1 Like
I’m no scientist and so, if it is OK with you, I’ll follow Augustine’s advice and not try to pass comment on scientific things I have knowledge of or limited understanding. But I did want to chuck in a theological/philosophical perspective on the above which hopefully chimes with your scientific perspective on the cosmological argument.
Essentially, the Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) trades on efficient causation. The efficient cause being the thing that brings another thing into existence or sets it in motion. For example, the carpenter is the efficient cause of a table, since he is the one who brings the table into existence.
The thing about KCA is that all it does is prove (philosophically) that the universe has an efficient cause. It does not provide any proof (philosophical or otherwise) to the identity of that cause. It could be God, but it could be the Big Bang or both, or neither… crumbs, it could unicorns from the fifth dimension as far as the argument itself is concerned. 
In other words, it is one thing to say, the universe has a beginning, therefore, it has an efficient cause. It is another thing to say that this efficient cause is the God of the Bible who was incarnated in Jesus Christ. The latter requires a logic leap not provided by the argument itself so that in reality the argument mutates and ends up looking like this:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
- That cause is the God of the Bible.
So I don’t think the KCA is a God of the gaps argument per se but rather is wielded so haphazardly by apologists that it inevitably gets transformed into a God of the gaps argument. Does that make sense?
At the end of the day, I believe that God is the efficient cause of all things, not because of the KCA but because of God’s special revelation, the Bible (Ie. Genesis 1:1, etc.). Further, if it were proven that the universe did not have a temporal beginning, but that in the natural realm pre-existed or existed always (whatever that might look like) or had gone through cycles, etc. I’d be ok with that. Since following Thomas Aquinas, I would argue that God is (among other things) a being of pure existence and that all things ultimately exist by virtue of his existence, regardless of the natural process that brings them into existence or sustains there existence.
So I guess what I am saying is, that regardless of what science discovers about the origin of the universe, God will remain the ultimate cause of all that is. Though not in the way some apologists might mean. But again, ultimately I arrive here because of the Bible’s witness about God not because of the KCA. Namely, that “from him, and through him, and to him are all things. To God be the glory forever. Amen.” Romans 11:36.
3 Likes
Yeah I would agree. Thanks for writing this out more explicitly.
Sounds good.
I think that’s a fine position to have. It’s a ‘brute fact’ of sorts that I’ve also thought about. It also doesn’t pit you against scientific explanations ever which seems to be a good place to be at.
3 Likes