This passage from Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time explains the origin of the phrase “turtles all the way down.”
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
It’s possible the old lady’s objection was in response to Bertrand Russell’s comment:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.”
As far as I can tell the story hasn’t been verified as historical fact, but I think it’s a great point to launch a discussion from — namely, a discussion about the infinite regress argument.
Creationism (and intelligent design, essentially the same thing) states that anything complex has to have been created. There’s no free lunch, they say; no 747s being built by hurricanes running through scrap yards. If you find a watch in the middle of a field, which is more likely: that it was assembled by accident, or it was constructed by an intelligent person and left there? You can’t create something out of nothing, and if something looks like it was designed then someone had to have designed it, right?
This argument by analogy mischaracterizes neo-darwinian evolution, but I’ll leave that for another day. For now, I’ll cover the infinite regression involved in the assumption that anything sufficiently complex has to have been the result of design by a creator.
First, I’m assuming that any creator must be at least as complex as that which it creates. Second, for the sake of argument, I’ll assume that all things in this world must have been created by an intelligent agent at some time or another, because their complexity leaves no other option. Again, this isn’t true, but it’s just for the sake of argument… you still with me?
So, we can — as Russell did — ask: who created the creator? If all complex things need a creator, and the creator is more complex than its creation, then there’s an infinite loop. We just keep pushing the problem back. If, however, we assume that the creator is the “first cause,” then we’ve traded the infinite regress problem for a different one. Consider the two possibilities in this scenario: the creator, who just exists (is outside of time, ultimately unknowable, etc, whatever excuse you want), created the universe; or, the universe just exists. Occam’s razor dictates that the simpler answer, the latter, is the correct one.
Intelligent design advocates love to point out that their so-called theory makes no claim about the creator, other than that “some intelligence is required” to explain complexity in life. I see them bring this up when asked how the existence of a creator is falsifiable — it isn’t, but they argue that it doesn’t matter. But, of course, there’s an implicit assumption that a creator exists in ID.
On what evidence do they base their conclusion that a creator exists? The only evidence ID supporters present is evidence of “design,” meaning examples of things that look “designed” to us, or that (so ID supporters say) can only be explained by design. But why is design evidence of a designer? Well, a designer has to exist, since the complexity in life can only be explained by the existence of a creator, as per my assumption above. More specifically, a creator more complex than its creation is required. Is it simpler to assume that a creator created the watch in the field, rather than it occurring through natural processes?
They’re right about the watch. It was intelligently designed — presumably by a human. But who created the creator of the watch? Is that an unfair question to ask? No, it’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Going by ID logic, that watchmaker in turn had to have been created. Evidence points to evolution by natural selection, of course, but in our thought experiment here we’re dealing with ID’s assumption that complex things have intelligent creators. So, who created the watchmaker? The creator, or intelligent agent they always refer to, I’d assume would be their answer.
But, as we’ve already gone two levels in, why stop here? Who created that creator? Is this an unfair question? Not any more than the previous two were. We had evidence to support the conclusion that the watch had an intelligent designer. ID supporters claim to have evidence concluding that there’s an intelligent designer for us. Why not go one level further? If there has to be intelligence for there to be complexity, and there has to be a creator if there is intelligence, and the creator is more complex than its creation, how do we escape the infinite loop?
“Suppose we change the subject,” they say.
They won’t say “Suppose we change the subjectâ€. Instead, they’ll ask what caused the Big Bang. Even if we find an answer to that, they’ll ask what caused that cause until we can’t give an answer. Then, they’ll point out that our theory is as silly as theirs.
@David
WTF.. The Big Bang is backed up by very strong evidence, and their “theory” is backed up by nothing. How is it “just as silly?” Besides, there doesn’t have to be a “cause” of the big bang. I propose that the universe has always just existed. It’s still simpler than saying god (who has always just existed, in their view) created the universe.
@huxley
The Big Bang theory doesn’t work on it’s own, you have to add Inflation Theory to it, so it fits in with what we observe today.
Also there is no strong evidence of course for the cause of the big bang. If you say you believe in the Big Bang theory, then the universe couldn’t have always existed, as before it there would have been nothing (no time, if there is no space). I like the fact that Augustine of Hippo said that in around 400AD.
@Molly
The big bang doesn’t explain what caused the universe to exist. Rather, it explains the initial conditions of the beginning of the universe. You’re making the same logical fallacy the blogger talked about: you assume that because something exists, it has to have a cause. The problem is, this cannot always be true. If it were, it’d lead to an infinite recursion. So the question is where do we draw the line for first cause? The blogger above did a good job of asserting his idea… youve yet to assert yours.
“I like the fact that Augustine of Hippo said that in around 400AD.”
st. augustine talked about inflation theory in 400ad? i’m impressed
anyway, christians have a huge double standard on this issue. they ask atheists to explain what caused the big bang, but never give an answer to what created god.
<>
Actually, in the Christian view, God created time and thus is not affected by it. He is outside of any universal laws, having created them in the first place. So using the “What Created God?” argument shows some level of ignorance toward the notion of God Himself.
@Dish Pan
If you had actually read my post, you’d see that I mentioned that belief. I just find it an unsatisfactory answer. Using the same logic, I could just say that the big bang was also outside of time — there’s no evidence for either assertion, so they’re both unproven and meaningless in this debate.
Before you write me off as ignorant, at least try to listen to me. You don’t have to agree with me; just keep an open mind and consider what I have to say.
Thanks probabilityZero for your open attitude and respectful language.
A Christian who is thinking properly will not say that everything needs a cause, but that all that is finite needs a cause. We all agree that there had to be a First Cause. There had to be something that was always there. There are good scientific reasons to believe that our universe is not that First Cause. The big bang is one of those reasons. It states that the universe is not eternal.
When you say, “I could just say that the big bang was also outside of time…” what do mean by that? The Big Bang is an event not an entity. God is an entity. And we define God partially based on the attributes that the First Cause must have had in order for us to end up with the current universe and its inhabitants.
Also, you state, “They’re right about the watch. It was intelligently designed — presumably by a human.”
But what is human intelligence? In a purely material world intelligence is not possible. Intelligence implies that you evaluate options and choose the most reasonable. In other words you use your brain. In a purely material world all that exists is cause and effect chains that are caused by natural laws. In such a worldview there is no “you”. “You” = a brain = molecules moved by natural forces and therefore choice is not possible. If choice is not possible neither is reason, and “you” are unable to make an argument to support “your” worldview.
Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. Thanks.
infinite regression
a simple support system
earth is supported on turtile
turtile is supported on earth
a mutual supporting system
@Dish Pan
I’m having trouble understanding what relevance God’s control over time has to anything? Even if he created time, he is still an intelligent being, requiring intelligent design much the same as everything else.
Except for one problem. We know that all things in space/time seem to have a cause. Things outside of space/time cannot be observed. Therefore, the argument of causation ends there. God, in biblical thought, is outside space/time, but can and has acted in space/time.
I like the infinite loop of “who created the creator?”
If you take the aforementioned stance of the creator existing outside of our universe and its physical laws, you are acknowledging another plane of existence. Why must a single entity from this other plane of existence be responsible, and why would it want to be honored, praised or worshiped only by a single species of intelligent animal on a single planet in the universe? The motive to this argument always reverts back to individuals who believe certain writings of man while ignoring others.
I can live without final answers and without using the “God” excuse for anything unknown to me. This means that I see no reason to argue over the factual basis of inflation or the big bang. My interest in these topics is really only to study the basis of discovery, as it is very exciting to discover new ways to analyze the universe we live in. I can accept that the universe was here when I was born and that I am under no obligation whatsoever to any entity in order to enjoy it as long as I meet my physical needs to remain alive.
Who created the Creator? Notice the mischaracterization of the facts set up to argue this strawman fallacy.
-Creationism (and intelligent design, essentially the same thing) states that anything complex has to have been created. – False.
-Anything that begins to exist, must have a cause.
-Anything that begins to exist, must have a cause.
If you don’t believe it, give one example of something that began to exist that did not have a cause.
TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MUGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphore, also seven times circling around the Ka’ba and oscilating in the Sa’i during the Hajj.
“A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME – From the Big Bang to Black Hole” by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR’AN by non believer. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.
TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MUGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphore, also seven times circling around the Ka’ba and oscilating in the Sa’i during the Hajj.
“A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME – From the Big Bang to Black Hole” by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR’AN by a non believer. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.