The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence

Argument’s basic theme: Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists, therefore it must have a cause. This “first cause” is God.

3 Forms: Simple Cosmological Argument Modal Cosmological Argument (the argument from contingency) The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274)

Aquinas’ argument (simple version): the universe exists everything that exists has a cause causes precede their effects the chain of cause & effect cannot go back in time indefinitely (an infinite regress) therefore, there must be a ‘first cause’ that is not itself an effect (ie. it has no prior cause) since everything has a cause, this first cause must be the cause of itself (ie. it must necessarily exist) this self-caused first cause is God therefore, God exists

3 Minute Pause… Does everything that exists in the known world, have a cause? What is meant by the term ‘infinite regress’ and can you conceive of this as being possible? What does it mean for a cause to be necessary?

Possible flaws in the argument: it is conceivable that the chain of cause & effect extends back into infinity (rebuts premise 4) By way of contrast, consider the future… do you suppose the future has a specific ending point? the argument seems inherently self-contradictory. It is based on the assumption that everything has a cause. This then begs the question – if this ‘first cause’ is God, what caused God?

Even if one accepts the idea of a ‘first cause’ (ie Even if one accepts the idea of a ‘first cause’ (ie. something that has always existed), it can be argued that the universe may always have existed. The regress could end with the necessary existence of the universe. It need not end with the positing of God as a ‘first cause’.

What about the Big Bang Theory? Umm..no, Science, not comedy…

What about the Big Bang Theory?

3 Minute pause…. Is ‘the Big Bang theory’ incompatible with theistic explanations of the beginning of the universe?

Variations on the cosmological argument: The Kalam cosmological argument Attempts to address the problem of God’s uncaused existence, that arises from the simple cosmological argument. (Arabic: kalam = speech; more broadly it means philosophical theism ) Dr William Lane Craig 1979 W.L Craig attempts to defend the existence of God based on the Big Bang theory, as without God, we would have to accept the seemingly absurd notion that something came from nothing (ex nihilo)

The Kalam cosmological argument relies on the premise that the universe has a beginning in time i.e. denies the possibility of an infinite regression: An actual infinite cannot exist A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite  A beginningless series of events in time cannot exist

The cause of the universe is GOD So… Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause The universe began to exist The Universe has a cause of existence The cause of the universe is GOD (without God, we have to accept the possibly absurd notion that something came from nothing [ex nihilo])

3 Minute pause… Is there a flaw in this reasoning?

Does this argument really solve the problem of ‘ex nihilo’? If God caused the ‘Big Bang’, he either creted matter ex nihilo, or there was something that, along with God, always existed.. Hmmmm….

Let’s try something else… Is it possible to imagine a state of affairs, in which nothing exists at all (even though this is not actually the case)? Why then, is there something, rather than nothing????

Professor Laurence Krauss argues that something from nothing is possible. His book entitled: “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” But can this tell us anything about whether god exists?

2. The Modal cosmological argument (or the argument from contingency) Is consistent with the premise that the universe has an infinite past. Something is ‘necessary’ if it couldn’t have failed to exist. If something is not necessary, then it is contingent. The universe as a whole, is contingent. That is, the state of affairs in which nothing existed at all, is logically possible (even though it is not the actual state of affairs) Everything that exists contingently, must have a cause for its existence…

If the universe might not have existed, then why does it? Its ‘reason’ for existence must be necessary (rather than contingent) The reason for the existence of the universe – is God.

Problems… If God is causeless, then one has to assume the characteristics of ‘God’ as a means of establishing God’s existence, and this is clearly circular… Furthermore… Is it rational to conclude that a necessary cause must be ‘divine’?

3 minute pause What distinguishes the 3 main forms of the cosmological argument? What criticisms can be made of the cosmological arguments for God’s existence? Does a ‘first cause’ imply the existence of the Judeo-Christian God?

Implications of the cosmological argument : If one accepts the cosmological argument as to God’s existence, what does it say about God’s nature? Is it consistent with God being omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving? What kind of God is posited by the cosmological argument?

Criticisms - David Hume (1711-1776) He considered the cosmological argument an a priori one, functioning only to show that the world logically demanded a causal explanation. But this explanation may lie within the nature of the world or the universe that exists.

David Hume 1. Is this a fallacy of Composition? Hume maintained that we have no experience of universes being made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. There is a logical jump that this argument fails to recognise. It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the whole system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to speculate about whether the system as a whole is caused. It is illegitimate to move from saying that every event in the universe has a cause to the claim that therefore the universe has a cause. (Fallacy of composition?)

2. Can God’s existence be necessary? He maintained that only propositions are necessary, a necessary being could be a contradiction in terms. “Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction…there is no being therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently, there is no being whose existence is demonstrable”

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) He maintained that only propositions are necessary, a necessary being could be a contradiction in terms. He rejected the argument outright not only because he maintained that the idea of a ‘necessary being’ was incoherent but also because our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world of space and time and it is not possible to speculate about what may or may not exist independently of space and time.

The principle of causality applies only to the world of sense experience – there is no basis for assuming that the principles which apply in our experience, also apply beyond our experience.

By extension… Why should we accept that God has properties that are not true of the observed universe (i.e. that God is self-caused or necessary)? And if so, then why can’t the universe be similarly self-caused?

Occam’s razor… The cosmological argument fails because it doesn’t leave us with fewer unanswered questions, or give us any deeper insight. Indeed, it raises more questions about the nature of God…