Outline the key features of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

07/05/2007, Mohsin Ali Raja, 12MD

Examine the key features of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God?

The Cosmological Argument (CA) is essentially an argument that argues with the intention of proving the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it (It derives from the word ‘cosmos’- the Greek word for the world). So it is based on the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe, as it assumes the universe has not always been in existence. It goes like this: everything that exists in the universe exists because it was caused by something else, and that something was caused by another thing, and then another something was caused by another thing and so on… so if this keeps going back, something must have started this all off, gave it all the first push, something which did not need to be caused and therefore needed to be a necessary being. This the CA argues is God. It is a traditional argument for the existence of God, and is also recognized as the First Cause Argument or the Prime Mover Argument.

It is basically a posteriori, synthetic, and inductive- given that the CA is a truth or evidence which is arrived at by observing the world. It is a posteriori argument because it is based upon experience. Its premises involve gathering evidence from experience and reasoning from that experience because it is based on what can be seen in the world or the universe. So as a result the premises of the CA on purpose consider the existence of the universe and aspects of it. It attempts to prove that god must exist as the creator of the universe or as the organizer of the universe (a necessary being). So fundamentally the argument forms a conclusion ‘regarding unobserved events based on the evidence provided by observed events.’ If for example if I repeatedly see event A followed by event B, then the next time I see event A I might predict, based on an inductive reasoning, that B will follow. Hence the premises of the CA are made up experiences on the existence of the universe.

The CA can take several forms, and there are many different presentations of it:

Godfrey Leibniz (1646-1716) - ‘why is there something rather then nothing.’
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - the 5 ways.
Al Ghazali (1058-1111) - The Kalam Argument.

Although it takes many different forms, it seems to be asking the same questions again and again:

‘How did the universe begin’?
Why was the universe created?
Who created the universe?

‘If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of a transcendent being, however the latter maybe described…one has to deny the reality of the problem, assert that thing ‘jus are’; and that the existential problem is a pseudo problem. And if one refuses to even sit down at the chessboard and make a move; one cannot off course be checkmated’ F.C. Coplestone (1961) Aquinas, Penguin.

One of the earliest forms of the CA was originally bought about by a very popular philosopher: Plato. He basically argued that everything is in motion, and this must eventually lead to a first mover who is uncaused. Therefore Plato came up with the conclusion of God, and defined God as the ‘first cause’ or the ‘first mover’.

However, the most popular the CA comes from St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who developed the famous ‘5 ways’ to prove the existence of God. St Thomas Aquinas (TA) was an Italian priest, theologian, and philosopher. One of his finest works was the ‘Summa Theoligica’ it was intended as a guide for beginners as a writing of all of the main teachings of that time. It is considered to be the best work of Roman Catholic theology, and is studied at many universities and colleges. Accordingly in this book he proposed ‘5 ways’ to prove the existence of a necessary God. Thomas Aquinas based his ‘5 ways’ on the studies of Greek philosophy; philosophers like Aristotle and Plato who also argued that motion and change are bought about by something external to the things they happen to. He used the details of change, causation, contingency, variation and purpose, and based to base his ‘5 ways’ on.

The first of Aquinas’s ‘5 ways’ for the existence of God was the ‘unmoved mover’. It was very similar to Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas about motion:

Nothing can move itself.
If every thing in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The first of Aquinas’s ‘5 ways’ for the existence of God was the ‘unmoved mover’. It was very similar to Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas about motion:

Nothing can move itself.
If every thing in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

This was Aquinas’s first way. According to him this line of movement cannot go back to infinity (He did not accept the concept of infinity, because he believed in God as the necessary being who created the universe). There must have been a first mover which was a necessary being (not dependant on anything else for existence). This necessary being according to him began the movement in everything without actually being moved itself. This necessary being was God.

Aquinas argued the world was finite with his first argument and rubbished the assumption of infinity; he used the example of fire: when the fire is hot it changes wood from cold to hot, it follows a sequence, so if the world was infinite it would mean it would be boundless, and one thing wouldn’t follow another so the wood would be hot without even being burnt.. This is impossible; therefore Aquinas assumed the world was finite. He did not accept a series of infinite movers either. As a result he said that there was a point at which the first movement occurred, bought about by a first mover. So ‘it is necessary to arrive at a first mover moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God’. This is Aquinas’s first way summed up.

‘The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world somethings are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, except it is potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, except be something in a state if actuality’ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoloigca.

Aquinas’s first way is also supported by Muslim scholarship, the Kalam argument which was bought about a Muslim scholar called Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) He is one of the greatest theologians of Islam. The Kalam Argument is very similar to Aquinas’s first way and it is as follows:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore
The universe has a cause of its existence.
If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
God exists.

This is the kalam argument summarized in all its premises; it is arguing that nothing comes into existence without being caused like Aquinas’s first way, and also points out that there cannot be an infinite chain of movers, causes or necessary beings and all need an first explanation. This again is very similar to Aquinas’s CA especially the first way although it was written before Aquinas’s time.

Moving on to Thomas Aquinas’s second way now, this way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas said our common sense tells us that no object creates itself and is always created by another (it would have to have existed before it existed), so in other words for a created there must be a creator and like the first cause he believed that there must be a first uncaused cause who began everything off. This is how the second way goes, the uncaused cause:

‘In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go onto infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause…therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God’ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica.

Things are caused by other things
Nothing can cause itself.
There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.

This leads us onto Aquinas’s third way, which was to do with contingency and necessity. This way talks about two different types of beings, contingent and necessary. A contingent being is a being which cannot come into existence without something making it come into existence and a necessary being is a being that does not depend on anything else for its existence. So if all these contingent beings go back and back and back there must have bee a time when there was nothing, so there then must have been a necessary being to start everything off. Therefore there must have been a necessary being which points towards the existence of God. So if God did not exist then nothing would exist.

Contingent beings are caused.
Not every being can be contingent.
There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
This necessary being is God.

‘We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be…therefore everything can not be then at one time there was nothing in existence… it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist and thus even now nothing would be in existence which is absurd… therefore we cannot but admit the some being having off itself its own necessity , and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others there necessity. This all men speak of as God’ Thomas Aquinas, Suma Theologica.

This third way can also be linked to a philosopher called Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) who was ‘German philosopher, mathematician, and political adviser, important both as a metaphysician and as a logician and distinguished also for his independent invention of the differential and integral calculus.’ He basically argued the principle of sufficient reason (reason for the universe). He said the universe needed an explanation for its existence, since simply why is there something rather then nothing, there is no logical explanation to explain why the universe exists and therefore there must be a reason externally to explain this ‘Why is there something rather then nothing’ so for a sufficient reason for the worlds existence, there must be a being that can create existence, this must be God Leibniz’s argument is sometimes known as the argument from ‘sufficient reason’ This is similar to Aquinas’s third cause. This is supported by Richard Swinburne: ‘It is extraordinary that there should exist something at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs in nothing, no universe, no God, no nothing…if we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so- even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being’ Richard Swinburne ,1996.

Another key feature of the CA is its assumption of infinity, and it is supported by Maths aswell as Science. In Maths it is supported by Ed Miller that the existence of an infinite number of anything leads to logical contradictions. If the universe was infinite then there would be loads of past times and no presents, as we could not have reached this day. ‘I.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning.’ An infinite universe would have an infinite number of days, the end of an infinite series of days would never be reached, this means that we would never reach today. This is the reason Ed Miller gives for the universe being Finite and his belief in God because he believes God started the finite world.

The ideas is also supported by science and the big bang theory; the big bang theory states that at one time there was nothing and then the big bang caused the world to come into existence, so this clearly points towards a finite world as science states there was a beginning. It is also stated in science that at one time the world will come to an end, furthermore supporting the idea of the world being finite.

B) For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the Cosmological Argument? How far is it possible to regard the Cosmological Argument as a strong argument?

The CA has many weaknesses, mainly because it is a posteriori argument as this leaves the conclusions of the argument open to debate. The criticisms mostly ask the same questions.

Does there have to be a cause?
Why look for an explanation in the first place?
Is the concept of a necessary being meaningful?

A key flaw with the argument according to David Hume and Bertrand Russell is that it relies on the idea that everyone is interested in finding such answers about the universe; like Bertrand Russell who says the universe doesn’t need any explanation for its existence at all, it is just there and according to him and it doesn’t need any explanation whatsoever. ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all’. However, followers of the argument have responded by saying: the CA offers key unexplained answers about the universe- so why should one assume the universe is just there, when the CA offers more then that. They argue that Russell’s reasoning is too limited, and he is also criticized for his lack of interest.

Furthermore Russell again criticizes the argument- Claiming that just because everything on earth has a cause, this doesn’t mean the universe itself must also have a cause: ‘because everything in it has a cause is like claiming that because every human being has a mother, the entire human race has a mother. ‘The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever…what im saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total’ Bertrand Russell. This is similar to David Hume’s criticism as he also maintained that the fact that everything within the universe has a cause it doesn’t necessarily mean that the universe has a cause, and why can’t the universe be self causing. ‘To move from ‘everything that we observe has a cause to the universe has a cause is too big a leap in logic’ David Hume.’ Yet one could respond to this by saying the CA reaches a conclusion that God is the complete and satisfactory explanation to the universe (god of classical theism), after all it does fit his qualities, and the nature of the universe is such that it would be virtually impossible to claim that it possessed some essential requirement, God makes more sense and fits the bill.

Another key criticism of the argument is how it makes the assumption of the world being finite; this criticism is made by Peter Vardey among others. Vardey uses the example of a lady ‘He tells a woman who interrupted a lecture by a scientist on the origins of the universe saying that she knew better. When asked to explain she said that ‘the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise’. The scientist asked what the tortoise stood on and she replied ‘you’re very clever young man, very clever, but its tortoises all the way down’ so this raises the question on the universe being finite. There can be a series of uncaused causes that go onto infinite, therefore making the world infinite another criticism on this issue has been raised scientifically, if the world is finite then at one time everything must not be, but according to the principle of the conservation of energy where a object can change its shape or form and still not go out of existence, this also maybe points toward an infinite world. However one could respond o this by saying that science also supports the idea of a finite universe via the big bang theory. The Big Bang theory clearly states that the world was bought into existence, and therefore has a starting point. You could also respond to the idea of infinity mathematically, as if the world was infinite we wouldn’t have reached today.

So these are the main reasons for why some thinkers have rejected the CA, but in conclusion I believe the CA is a strong argument for the existence of God, as it answers key questions about the universe, although some will say science does it better, the odds are to big to suggest that everything could have jus fitted into its own place by mere chance, or by science, it seems unlikely. Surely everything couldn’t just have come about by scientific chance, God must exist.

Reference:

Student Workbook.

Philosophy of Religion for A-level- Chapter 5

RS Textbook.

The Puzzle of God- Peter Vardey. -Pg 103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument