The First Cause Argument: Causal Loop

The Causal Loop: An Argument against an Infinite Universe
Further Information about the First Cause Argument

In the First Cause Argument (FCA), I made the statement that an overall defense of the argument would be written in Part 2 and would help address the main challenges against it. Well, as you know it hasn't been written and the reasons are why I am writing this now - along with a few more articles. Simply put, to defend something you must know what you are defending. Without knowing the details of the argument I would serve an injustice instead of helping you understand the argument itself; supplying pithy statements over informed assessments. These following articles are written with a more in-depth look at each of the main arguments for the First Cause - starting with the Causal Loop.

An important point was made that something could not be prior to itself: an effect could not cause itself because it must be prior to itself– being false. Why is this false? Why does it matter? This is called the causal loop argument.

A Causal loop, as by its name, is based upon causations; that for each cause there is an effect, however, the difference lies within the idea of it being looped. For the older folks, you may remember in the Atari games once you achieved a certain level the game ‘flips or goes back to level zero and you start the whole process over. Lets take a circle as our example and specify a particular point on the circumference. The circle represents the infinite loop of causations and the specific point on the circle represents any specific cause or group of causes. What you will immediately notice is either way you go about the circle you come back to the same point – nothing is added and nothing is taken away.

This idea is not as complex as it may first seem, but a short story should clarify this. If you have seen any movies or read any books that consist of Time Travel you have heard these type of theories. A young man as he was growing up witnesses an assassination. His desire is to save this person, thus, in his future he desires to travel back in time. When he is sent back into time he walks into the room where the assignation plot were to happen. Instead of saving him, the person was killed because his entrance was believed to be by an intruder; thus being the inspiration of him traveling back in time.

What does this mean? Each cause or causes that that specified point represents must always be prior and later than its self at the same time – remember this is a circle and all direction is bent back to itself. The infinite causal loop defines that each effect caused itself and each cause affects itself simultaneously. The problem with this argument is there are no known, or possibly known, objects that are prior to itself – I was not alive before I lived, nor did I type this letter before it was typed.

For this idea to be correct, that there is a causal loop, the universe would have to have existed before it existed and exist after it existed at the same time. This cannot be so because there would be no origin, no causes, and no effects; all which are observable. Thus, our first substantiated premise for the First Cause Argument is that time arrows in one direction and is not looped.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

The Atheist Assertions:
  1) The Bible condones slavery because the Bible doesn't specifically speak against it.
  2) Jesus, the Moral Teacher of Christianity, also did not speak against slavery.

Response:

The single greatest atrocity to plague human rights has held captive our past, gives strife to our present, and casts a veiled shadow to our future - Serfdom, Human Trafficking, Peonage, all are called Slavery. 

Since our discussion will mainly focus on Ethics, morality and value judgments, I will begin by explaining those three terms.

Ethics, the philosophic study of morality, values, motives, characters, and conducts, can be divided into two main sub-groups: Ethics and Meta-Ethics. Ethics, though possibly subjective, makes assertions based on objective Meta-Ethical statements. For example, we could argue that lying is Ethically wrong, but perhaps permissible if we saved the life of another, however, the term “wrong” is Meta-Ethically objective in its assertion of what “wrong” is; for it does not change in either decision.

My definitions for Meta-Ethics would be of Love:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

My definition of the objective validity of Meta-Ethical Standards, I would quote:

Romans 2:12-15 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

In following suite, my Ethical definition would be a specific application of love:

Mark 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Thus morality, or the proper behavior, would be defined only if there was agreement and correctness in my Ethical and Meta-Ethical statements, and my Value Judgment would be defined correctly by my assertion of what Slavery is.

My objective, by upholding both my Ethical and Meta-Ethical claims, is to counter-factually provide evidence that the Bible creates a strong case by labeling slavery as immoral. This, of course, could only be justified if Morality and Value Judgment would be in support of my Ethical and Meta-Ethical definitions and if the opposite could not be tenable under Biblical assertions.

Our conversation does not deal with the morality of Slavery, as we agree to its immorality – so no definition of that is needed- , but whether the Bible supports slavery either in practice or application. Your support for this claim amounts to two points. First, the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and, secondly, Jesus Christ, the Christian Moral Teacher, did not speak against it himself.

Your latter point, concerning Jesus Christ, is about as valid as citing that H.G. Wells, the father of the SciFi Genre and Scientist, must have wanted an iPad. Your warrant, that if someone does not speak upon a certain subject in his field he must support it, is altogether invalid and, as known prior, unsubstantiated.

This point also ties into your accusations against the Bible. If your evidence for Biblical slavery is concerned with no evidence against slavery then you have started with a faulty premise. However, the Bible does speak against slavery in the terms of moral application.

My definitions, as noted above, could not be upheld if Slavery were permitted. Slavery does not only violate both of my definitions because it is not love or doing unto others as done unto you– for if Slavery was love of another, there would be no issue –, but further, by upholding the objectivity stance of Meta-Ethics, slavery would be a direct argument against the whole of Christendom and philosophical thinking; being untenable to the contrary.

Whenever I study philosophy, or if you study any subject, one thing to remember is the difference between theoretical and practical applications. Thus, to show the practical or substantiated claims to my arguments, I will give a reference to four Christians, William Wilberforce, John Newton, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Rev. Jessie Jackson, who fought against slavery entirely on Biblical Principles.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?” - Wilberforce

“God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” - Wilberforce

In conclusion, in the Ethical manner we have approached this topic on slavery, we could not substantiate the support of slavery by Biblical moral assertions, the absent of specific words do not uphold an idea when the idea is condemned by other means, and, by the Christians themselves, we know they held pivotal parts in abolishing slavery. If anything could be noted, if anything could be taken away from our conversation, it is this: the Bible has always spoken upon the social justice of mankind, to do unto others as done unto you, and that all men are equal, indifferent, in the sight of God – this is not slavery but human equality.