How valid do you think the Cosmological Argument is as proof for the existence of God?
How valid do you think the Cosmological Argument
is as proof for the existence of God?
The cosmological argument is a classical argument for the existence of God. It is also referred to as the first cause argument. The cosmological argument concludes Gods existence from a posteriori premise. A posteriori means an argument in which the truth of a proposition may only be known to be true after empirical data has been used to prove the proposition true or false. The argument is a posteriori because it is based upon what we can see in the world and universe. The argument is based upon the fact that there was a first cause behind the existence of the universe. The classic, basic cosmological argument is as follows. Things come into existence because something caused them to occur, and that things are caused to exist, but they do not have to exist. There is a chain of events that goes back to the beginning of time, and time began when the universe was created. We know the universe came about around 15 billion years ago. There must have been a first cause that brought the universe into creation. This first cause must have necessary existence to cause the contingent universe. God has necessary existence, this means God exists outside our space and time, however, he is able to create within it. Because of this, God is the first cause of the contingent universe's existence.
The argument has many forms and has been presented in many different ways. In each form, the argument focuses upon the causes that lead up to the existence of things. The argument appears to answer the questions, how did the universe begin? Why was the universe created? And who created the universe? Philosophers over the centuries have used different terminology to describe the first cause of the universe. Philosophers have been known to refer to this first cause as 'the first cause', 'the first mover', 'necessary being', 'self-existing being', and of course, 'God'. The cosmological argument pre-dates Christianity, and Plato, the student of the 'father of philosophy' Socrates, developed one of the earliest forms. Plato argued that the power to produce movement logically comes from the power to receive and pass it on. In order for there to be movement in the first place, there must have been an uncaused cause to start the movement. Plato termed this uncaused cause the 'first cause' or 'first mover'.
St. Thomas Aquinas developed the most popular version of the cosmological argument, in his Five Ways that proved the existence of God. He called this demonstratio for the existence of God. He put this forward in his book Summa Theologica. The first three of his five ways to prove the existence of God form the cosmological argument. These three are motion or change, cause and contingency.
In the first cause, Aquinas said that in the world there are things that show motion. He said whatever caused this motion must have been moved by something else. Aquinas believed that the chain of movement cannot go back to infinity, and he believed there must have been a prime mover, which itself was unmoved. Aquinas said that the unmoved mover began movement in everything without actually ever being moved itself. For Aquinas, this mover was God. Aquinas was talking about movement in a broad sense. He included not only movement from one place to another, but also ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In the first cause, Aquinas said that in the world there are things that show motion. He said whatever caused this motion must have been moved by something else. Aquinas believed that the chain of movement cannot go back to infinity, and he believed there must have been a prime mover, which itself was unmoved. Aquinas said that the unmoved mover began movement in everything without actually ever being moved itself. For Aquinas, this mover was God. Aquinas was talking about movement in a broad sense. He included not only movement from one place to another, but also movement in the sense of change in quality and quantity. According to Aquinas, an object only moved when an external force was applied to it. Aquinas said that things could reach there potential through an external force was applied to it. Aquinas used the example of fire making wood hot. In order for a thing to change, actuality is required. If it were not, a thing would have to change in itself. This would mean the thing being actual and potential at the same time, and Aquinas thought this to be a contradiction. For example, if wood could make itself hot, then it would be hot already, and wood cannot be hot to begin with, otherwise, it would not change and become hot. The fact that wood is not hot already is its actuality, and the fact that fire can make wood hot is its potentiality. In turn, something must have made the fire change and become set alight, each change is therefore a result of an earlier change. Aquinas did not accept that there was a series of infinite changes. He concluded that there must have been a point of a first mover who made a first movement. According to Aquinas, 'it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God'.
In the second of his five ways, Aquinas used causes to prove the existence of God. Aquinas observed that nothing could be the cause of itself, as this means it would have to have existed before it existed. This is a logical impossibility. Aquinas rejected an infinite series of causes, and believed that there must have been a first, uncaused cause. This first cause started the chain of causes that have caused all events to happen, and for Aquinas, the first cause was God. In the third of his five ways, Aquinas used contingency. Aquinas identified contingency of matter in the universe, on the basis that things come into existence and then cease to exist. Aquinas concluded there must have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be external and have always existed. Aquinas argued that there must have been a 'necessary being' that brought everything else into existence, and Aquinas argued that this was God. He concluded that if God did not exist, then nothing would exist.
The Kalam is an Arabic term which means to argue or discuss. The Muslim scholar's al-Kindi (9th Century CE) and al-Ghazali (CE 1058-1111) developed the Kalam argument to explain God's creation of the universe. The kalam argument is cosmological because it seeks to prove that God was the first cause of the universe.
William Lane Craig developed the modern version of the argument in his book, The Kalam cosmological argument (1979). The first part of his argument is as follows. The present would not exist in an actual infinite universe, because successive additions cannot be added to an actual infinite. The present does exist, as result of a chronological series of past events. The universe must be finite, and a finite universe must have a beginning. Whatever began the universe had a first cause, as things cannot cause themselves. Therefore, the universe had a first cause of its existence. Craig said the first cause was God. Craig argued that if the universe did not have a beginning, then the past must consist of a series of events that is actually, and not merely potentially, infinite. Craig cannot accept this idea because it would mean that past events form a collection of events, in which, for example, there would be just as many wars as there would be all the other events together. Craig concluded that the history of the universe was formed by one event following on from another event, this is successive addition. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning in time.
The second part of the kalam argument seeks to prove God as the personal creator of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then this beginning was either caused or uncaused. Either it was a natural occurrence or a choice was made to bring the universe into existence. Supporters of the kalam argument say that the rules of nature did not exist before the beginning of the universe, so therefore the universe cannot be result of natural causes. Craig concluded that 'if the universe began to exist, and if the universe is caused, then the cause of the universe must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world'. This argument depends on the belief that God created the universe ex nihilo. If the universe was created out of nothing, then the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time. So for, there must have been a personal agent existing outside time to start creation, and this agent must have wanted the universe to exist.
Ed Miller developed another version of the kalam argument, based on the passage of time. Miller argued as follows. An infinite universe would have an infinite number of days. The end of an infinite series of days cannot be reached, so today would never arrive. However, today has arrived, so therefore the past cannot be infinite. Miller said that time began when the universe began. Events are caused, and the beginning of the universe was an event, so for, it must have been a first cause, and the first cause was God.
But how successful was the design argument? One of the major objections to the argument is the suggestion that infinity is impossible and that the universe had a beginning. Many philosophers point out that Aquinas and Craig contradicted themselves by rejecting the infinite. Both of them reject the infinite, but say God is infinite, which is quite a contradiction. However, supporters of the argument point out that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to God.
In the Five Ways (1965), Anthony Kenny said that Aquinas' principle that nothing itself goes against the fact that animals and humans move themselves. He continued that in Newton's first law of motion, movement can be explained by a body's own inertia from previous movement, disproves Aquinas' argument. Kenny said that Newton's law 'wrecks the argument of the first way. For at any time the rectilinear uniform motion of the body can be explained by the principle of inertia in terms of the body's own previous motion without appeal to any other agent'.
David Hume, in Dialogues concerning natural religion (1779), asked why we must conclude that the universe had to have a beginning. Even if the universe had a beginning, it does not mean that anything caused it to begin. Bertrand Russell supported Hume's view. Russell observed that just because humans have a mother, doesn't mean the universe does. The universe does not have to have a beginning, it could have always been there. As Russell stated, 'I should say that the universe is there, and that's all'.
Gottfried Leibniz (CE 1646-1716) accepted the argument because he believed that there had to be 'sufficient reason' for the universe to exist. He did not accept that it was uncaused. Leibniz rejected an infinite universe because he did not believe that it was a satisfactory explanation for its existence. He did accept that God was the first, uncaused cause on which everything else depends. Recently, Quentin Smith argued that the kalam version of the argument. Smith uses quantum mechanics to demonstrate the possibility of things existing without a direct cause. The universe may have had a beginning, but there was no reason to believe that it was God.
Immanuel Kant examined the argument of the existence of a Supreme Being as first cause of the universe. He argued that the idea every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of experience. Kant said that it did not apply to things we have not experienced. Kant would not accept it as valid to extend the knowledge that we do possess to questions that transcend our experience. God would be a casual being outside space and time, as we understand it. Therefore, it would be impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself.
The big bang theory provides a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. Supporters of the cosmological argument use it to prove the existence of God. Both people for and against the cosmological argument use it to support both of there arguments. Scientific evidence has proved the beginning of our universe. But the debate is whether this was caused by random chance or by a divine figure. Was the big bang caused by a spontaneous random event, or by God?
Some philosophers argue that even if there was a first cause of the universe, there is no proof that it is God of classical theism. The first cause could be anything. Hume argued that the first cause, if there was one, could be material, physical rather than God. The material world as its own cause is just as satisfactory an explanation for God. Brian Davies took the position that the cosmological argument cannot stand alone as a proof for the existence of God. He says it would have to be supported by other evidence. Davies says that perhaps the design argument may be further evidence to establish the existence of God.
Bibliography
Philosophy of Religion for A level Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer, Edwin Tate
Stanley Thornes
