The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence or how come we all exist? Is there a rational basis for belief in God?

Brief History of the Argument Plato ( BCE) and Aristotle( BCE) both developed first cause arguments saying the universe required some kind of self originated motion to set it in motion and to maintain that motion. Plato came up with the idea of a “demiurge” – a being of supreme wisdom and intelligence but which lacked the ability to create something out of nothing. Aristotle proposed the idea of a first cause or “Prime Mover”. This follows Parmenides’s famous statement “nothing can come from nothing”. 1.Make up your own paragraph using the words highlighted. 2.What did Parmenides mean by “nothing can come from nothing”? Do you agree? Give reasons

St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) Main proponent of the argument in his “Five Ways”. He defined God as the First Cause, or Uncaused Causer and then using motion in a variant of the argument saw God as the Prime Mover.

Summary of the argument 1.Everything that exists must have a cause. 2.The universe exists, therefore it must have a cause. 3.Causal chains cannot go back to infinity 4.There must be a first cause. 5. his “first cause” is God. The argument is motivated by evidence of causation in the world. Therefore it is an empirical argument based on observations of the world Task: Write out the argument formally – what do you notice about it? Be aware of some key terms and their links with other aspects of the course Empiricism = knowledge based on experience or through the senses. Think back to the Critical Thinking module. What kind of arguments would be empirical?

The Cosmological Argument (p1) Everything has a cause (p2) Nothing is its own cause (p3) A chain of causes cannot be infinite ______________________________________ (c) There must be first cause to the universe (c) The first cause is God Go through the argument line by line and try to be critical of each step. Provide counter arguments if you can.

Causation in the world The Cosmological Argument uses a defining feature of the world- causation to question what was the first cause. It then conflates this first cause with God. Write a causal chain explaining your existence

What does the argument imply about God? Note the traditional theistic view of God = Omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all- knowing) and all-loving. God is said to be eternal – to have always existed necessarily. Question: To what extent does the Cosmological argument support this view of God? Think carefully about the conclusions of the Cosmological Argument

Implications of the argument for God’s nature Argument uses God’s special nature to account for a first cause. A first cause cannot itself be caused by anything else. It must be uncaused and necessary as opposed to contingent. God fits the description of an uncaused necessary being.

Objections to 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? (note this objection misunderstands God’s “special” nature as a necessary being)

More objections 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’. The argument commits the fallacy of composition by assuming that the parts of the universe are the same as the whole.

Objections to the Cosmological Argument Hume claims that that to posit God as a necessary being in the same way as 2+2=4 is to make a mistake. God is not like mathematics. It is possible to conceive of God not as the creator of the universe. Therefore, we simply cannot know what brought the universe into existence. It is mere speculation. In the Cosmological Argument God is simply being used to explain a gap in our knowledge. We do not know what caused our universe to exist – it is a “God-shaped hole” in our knowledge but it does not mean it is God.

More objections Quantum physics provides a objection to a universe which needs a direct cause. Quantum theory is the set of physical laws that apply primarily on a very small scale for entities the size of atoms. At the heart of quantum theory lie the linked concepts of uncertainty and wave- particle duality. In quantum every entity has a mixture of properties we are used to thinking of as distinctly different – waves and particles. Heisenburg’s “uncertainty principle” demonstrated that the smallest parts of matter are subject to unpredictable fluctuations. These appear to be spontaneous events. Quantum theory raises the following question: Was the origin of the universe a spontaneous quantum event or does it prove that there was a divine being responsible for it? Quentin Smith argues that quantum physics provide a possibility that the universe may have come into existence without a direct cause. The universe may have had a beginning but there is no reason to think that it is God.

Summary of objections: School boy’s objection – criticise Fallacy of composition Limitations on conclusion = no traditional theism Hume – God’s existence is not necessary Universe could be infinite Universe could be its own cause “God shaped hole” does not equal God Quantum physics could mean there is uncaused matter in the universe

Things to think about Brian Davies takes the position that the Cosmological Argument cannot stand alone as a proof for the existence of God and it would have to be supported by other evidence. “As an argument for a first cause of all existing things the Cosmological Argument seems a reasonable one. But it does not by itself establish the existence of God with all the properties sometimes ascribed to him.” Brian Davies The Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (OUP 1990)