One could argue that the universe needn’t have a beginning. David Hume states this brute fact by declaring that the universe is eternal. He goes on to say that if the universe did begin, it does not mean that anything caused it to come into existence.
However, the Kalam Argument proves that there can be no infinite regress. It does this by defining the difference between potential and actual infinity. Actual infinity encompasses all possibilities. It is always complete and cannot be added to. It has no start and no ending. Potential infinity, on the other hand, can always be added to. Thus, it never reaches infinity. It has a beginning and continues towards infinity from there. Time appears to be potentially infinite because we continually and new moments and experiences. Therefore, if time is potentially infinite it must have had a beginning and there can be no infinite regress.
Finally, Aquinas’ Third Way is contingency. Something is contingent if it may or may not exist. There needs to be a prior cause in order for it to exist. This chain of contingency cannot go on forever as proved by the Kalam Argument. Therefore, the Universe needs a cause. This must be an external, non-contingent cause. This cause was God.
This was further developed by Professor F Copleston, which was put forward during a debate with Bertrand Russell on BBC Radio in 1947. What he said was that we know there are some things in the universe that are contingent. The universe is the totality of all things. Therefore, the Universe is contingent. As there must be a sufficient reason for everything, there must be a cause for the universe or a necessary being as Copleston called it. This necessary being must be eternal, non-contingent, and metaphysical. This necessary being is God.
As you can see Copleston’s theory of contingency depends on the Principle of Sufficient Reason as put forward by Gottfried Leibniz. He said that nothing takes place without a sufficient reason. Thus, everything requires a complete explanation. You cannot describe your existence by saying that you are the child of your parents as this gives only a partial explanation. For a complete or sufficient reason, we must go back until there is something that is non-contingent. This is what Leibniz calls God.
As can be seen, acceptance of Copleston’s theory of contingency depends on your acceptance of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Another flaw, however, was pointed out by Bertrand Russell in this same debate. He said that Copleston believes that the qualities of the part must be reflected in the whole. If the parts are contingent then the whole is contingent. However, this isn’t necessarily true. All humans have mums yet humanity (the totality of humans) doesn’t have an overall mum. Therefore, even if all the parts of the universe are contingent it doesn’t mean the universe itself is contingent.
There is another flaw with all of Aquinas’ ways. Immanuel Kant examined the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe. The idea that every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something that we have not experienced; therefore we cannot conclude that God caused the universe to begin. We cannot empirically verify something that is beyond our senses. God as we understand him would be a causal being outside space and time. Therefore, it would be impossible to have any knowledge of what God has created or of God Himself.
As you can see the cosmological argument depends on whether you accept that God is the cause of the universe or not. We cannot dispute that there can be no infinite regress as this has been disproved by the Kalam Argument. While David Hume points out that even if the universe did begin it doesn’t mean anything caused it to exist, he sticks by his point that the universe is eternal. He is guilty of assumption. However, Aquinas is guilty of just the same. He states that God, being this metaphysical and non-contingent being, is eternal. It comes down to whether you believe which one is eternal. The universe is physical, thus we can draw conclusions from observing it. However God is metaphysical and we can’t do the same as it is beyond the observable. Based on our observations of the universe it we can see its dependent, caused, and contingent nature. Therefore, to claim the physical is eternal may be more logical.
Furthermore, the argument is dependent on whether you accept the principle of sufficient reason or not. In saying that everything demands a sufficient reason it supports Aquinas’ demand for a first cause. However, if everything demands a sufficient reason isn’t it right to ask what is the sufficient reason for God’s existence? The principle is merely an assumption. By following the logic further the principle itself needs a sufficient reason as everything must have a sufficient reason. This would lead to an infinite regress of reasons and as proved by the Kalam Argument this cannot exist.
Modern science further weakens the cosmological argument. The Big Bang provides a scientific explanation of the first cause of the universe, and thus eliminates the necessity for a God. The Steady State theory states that the universe has always existed as it is now, and thus is eternal. This eliminates the necessity for a first cause to the Universe. It seems that there needn’t be a God for the universe to exist. Furthermore, Quentin Smith used quantum mechanics to demonstrate the possibility of things existing without a direct cause. The universe may have had a beginning, but there is not reason to think that it is God. As in the teleological argument, there may be a creator to the universe but who goes to say there can’t be many?
In conclusion, I believe the weaknesses outweigh the strengths of the design argument. While there may be no infinite regress of time in the Universe, there is no reason to assume that this first cause is God. While I may disagree with Hume in that there is no infinite regress I agree with him that his beginning need not be God. Therefore, I believe the cosmological argument alone to not be a sufficient proof of the existence of God.
