The Search for God Page 2.1.3.1.1
Eternal and non-caused. While at first, these two attributes seem similar and are often used interchangeably, I want to consider the nuanced difference. When we discussed the universe and eternality, we came to the conclusion that something has to be eternal.
There is some substance that has always been present, whether that substance is a being in the living sense or whether that substance is non-living matter. Refer to the article, “What Does it Mean to Be Eternal?”
Which caused the other: the seed or the plant?
The First Eternal Substance
What that means is that whatever that first substance is would be the cause of everything else that exists. So if the non-living matter is the eternal substance, then anything originating from that would be caused by that material.
So the question I must ask is, what is more likely to be the first cause of everything that exists, a living being or non-living matter? Let’s explore.
If the non-living matter is the first material energy, quarks, dark matter, whatever that substance is, we have to explain two things. First, what would be the internal mechanism or cause for a change in the substance?
So, if the material is present, what change did the material undergo to result in an explosion or change in state? We understand that things at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
Was the matter somehow unstable? Of course, we will never know this answer; we cannot go back to the moment the change occurred. The other option is that a living being is what is eternal.
In this situation, a being with a mind, a will, and an ability could shape something. Still, the internal change would be the first cause of everything else coming into existence. While I think the argument from the first cause of the universe is compelling proof that God should exist, I think the second issue is more problematic.
Chicken or Egg Which Came First?
The second issue is regarding the priority of cause and existence. Let’s put it this way, which is more likely to occur? Is it more likely that non-living matter created living beings or that a living being created living beings?
I say created in the first instance to understand that to have something develop with intelligence or function generally requires purpose or planning. We could phrase it as, “Could non-living matter by random chance produce living matter?”
How does non-living material produce a fine-tuned universe for life to even develop? We look at a truck and know some intelligence designed and built it and that is not even a living being.
The priority of the existence of an eternal substance suggests that a living being is a non-caused substance followed by or eternal with a non-living substance, but a non-caused living being should be eternal.
We will explore this subject in more depth in the section on science starting with the article, “What Is Required to Be Considered a Living Being?”
Something eternal and non-caused is basically the same concept. Since something is eternal and the first cause of all that exists, which is more likely?
Please provide examples of non-intelligence producing intelligence or of non-living matter producing living beings separate from an intelligent organizing process. I am not talking about something already living and evolving, I am talking about something like the first cell.
At this stage of contemplation, I had to challenge my scientific biases which I had learned since middle school. Do I consider evidence from all sources and reason or discard a possibility because I was taught non-living matter precedes living beings? Chicken or the egg, which came first?
What Next?
- What is the crucial concept?
- There is some eternal substance which is the cause of everything else, something is non-caused.
- Why is that significant?
- Either a living being or non-living being is the cause of everything else.
- If you agree, the next steps.
- If you disagree, please consider reading.