Does God Exists? : Some Cosmological and Humanist reflections | The Odd Angle
The Context
Recently I watched a debate on the topic whether god exists or not between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Samail Nadvi. The debate was supposed to be academic however the subject was limited to logic and meta-physical level. Nadvi pointed out three standards out of the situation while discussing the issue (1) Science; as it dealt with empirical domain and god is supernatural hence beyond the senses, (2) Revelation; in the sense that scriptures mention existence of such entity and must be believed, (3) Observation; it builds on the same argument that you can’t show god as its beyond the grasp of our senses e.g. you can not detect plastic with metal detector.
Hence he sets out logic as standard to prove or disprove the existence of god, however he limits it to a definitive argument. Nadvi begins with the question on creation i.e. who created this world and mentions its natural to look for an outside agent for such creation which he accounted to the supernatural. He anticipated ignorance and dogmatic probable answers from atheists.
He negated the ‘God of Gap' argument as an explanation of natural phenomena does not negate the existence of ‘supernatural’ god and Ethical argument i.e. if god exists why there is evil in society? Though Nadvi eliminated ethos as a potential mode of appeal as emotions can not be considered valid to arrive at conclusion, he simultaneously utilized the same ethical argument to propose the existence of god on the basis of accountability that in order to have good one needs evil.
Akhtar on the other hand refutes with unquestioned assumption of god as creator i.e. how existence of god is often taken granted by theists and it is seen as eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent without any skepticism. To the argument of accountability i.e. humans are accountable to necessary beings for their deeds, Akhtar pointed out how the idea of justice and accountability are human made and not natural or pregiven and establishes how they are human made. We can also establish a difference between a socially constructed notion of justice and non-ideational reality, or a transitive aspect with an intransitive aspect of reality; however Nadvi seems to utilize the transitive idea to prove the existence of god which he claims to be intransitive and non-humanistic.
Nadvi consistently emphasized on ‘contingency argument’ and God as logical necessity to comprehend existence and proper functioning of the world. Here I shall attempt to ponder on questions which were either partially answered or remained unanswered by Akhtar.
The Contingency Argument
This argument is originally referred to as the Kalam Cosmological argument in metaphysics, which has been popularised by Craig who happens to be one of the main advocates for existence of necessary beings.
Let us first note down the premises of the same:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist so it has to have a cause and the god is taken to be that cause or agent which created this universe.
Both the Atheists and proponents of the Kalam Cosmological arguments agree on the Big Bang theory and hence to begin with this concern, I first bring Stephen Hawking, who deconstructs the creator notion with god as you can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for cause to exist in. He further disregards the notion that the universe began by being chosen by the god for reasons we can’t understand, he believes that it is rather determined by laws of science, which he says we can call “god”, but it wouldn't be a personal god that you would meet and ask questions about. He also mentions that “everything can be explained in another way, by the laws of nature. If you believe in science like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed, if you like, you can say laws are the work of god, but that is more of a definition of god than a proof of its existence”.
However recent developments, particularly ‘bouncing cosmology’ and many worlds or multiverse interpretation in cosmological theory have advanced on the same, it argues that the Big Bang may not be the actual origin of the universe, while the universe can begin with a quantum tunnel and quantum mechanical models may not even require a cause. Further scientists also point out the determinism with cause-effect, while one cause could have many effects and the one we have may be absolutely random and spontaneous. The Kalam Argument put forward by Craig and Nadvi actually begins with the intuitive understanding of causality which is ambiguous, as can we actually talk about causation when there was no time and space. We can understand using the analogy that you can ask what a chair costs but you can not ask what the universe costs as you can not step out of universe to buy it. The cause and effect relationship exists in the universe and you can not ask about the universe itself.
Further proponents of Kalam Cosmological argument including Craig regard self creation of universe as self contradiction, however as theory of relativity suggests that a possible time travel could create itself but it is self contradictory only if we consider time to be linear, what if we consider time to be circular then there is no notion of cause and effect and hence no contradiction.
Secondly, when atheists make an argument for infinite past to deconstruct the notion of free will creator god, the proponents of Kalam cosmological argument point out that concept of infinity is self-contradictory however critiques have also pointed out that Infinity is not self-contradictory especially if we look at Georg Cantor’s work which recognised actual infinities are coherent though counterintuitive. Also the same concept of infinity remains unquestioned on the infinite future or eternal god. Hence, one can conclude that the Kalam cosmological argument is based on outdated views of mathematics and physics. Mathematics does not deny infinity and nor does physics believe the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe.
The Odd Angle
I personally have always doubted the purpose of such inquiries beyond the cosmology and metaphysics, these arguments are often put forward by religious apologists rather than actual scientists who figure out these facts upon which the Kalam Cosmological argument is built. One can also question the proponents on how they do not consider science as an adequate mechanism to speculate however go on to use scientific findings to support their argument for god. The point is that we can prove anything metaphysically if we begin with the right assumptions; the Kalam cosmological argument does the same. It accepts selective generalisations which serve its purpose. However, we have no reasons to accept those assumptions. I would end with a Buddhist parable; Once Malunkyaputra, a follower of Buddha asked metaphysical questions about after death and god to Buddha, he replied suppose a man is wounded by a poisoned arrow and his friends and family are about to call a doctor. However the man insists to find who shot him, its caste, about its family and affiliations, about the arrow who made it, which wood it was made of, before the arrow was removed. What would you think of such a man?
We would call such a man a fool, replied Malunkyaputra shamefacedly. I also feel shame when people go on to debate whether dying children in Gaza are the will of God instead of finding a way to save them. I do not think we need God to remain kind, to envision a just world, nor do we need it to alleviate ourselves from suffering.
(Click Here for a detailed discussion on the Kalam cosmological argument)
Comments
Post a Comment
For any queries please contact us