ICR: The Effect Problem

Here is the arguement of the Effect Problem:

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.

The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.

In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces—and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.

Yet again, they jump from provable science Laws to labeling that which set the physical universe in motion. In the “Everything Has a cause” proof, they deduced that there is only two answers to the problem of causality. In this proof, they jump from saying there is only two choices to saying ‘they obvious choice is a singular First Cause’. Saying that there is an ever-decreasing chain of effects since the beginning of the universe tells you nothing about HOW it was caused. That simply tells you how much energy it had when it began and the rate of decay of energy in the system. Just because we cannot wrap our minds around how the universe started does not default it to being an “omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and Primary First Cause.”

To quote Dawkins in “The God Delusion“:

Omniscience and onmipotence are mutually incompatable. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history (miracles, answered prayers) using his onmipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.