It does seem that humans assume the theory of cause and effect as part of everyday life. For example, if we hear a gunshot we automatically assume that it had a cause not that it came from nowhere. Similarly, if we throw a ball into the air, we expect the effect of our actions to be that the ball will fall back to the ground. Although cause and effect seems obvious, some philosophers, such as David Hume have suggested that something can arise without a cause, saying that it is easy to imagine something being non-existent one moment and existent the next without supposing that it has a cause. Despite Hume’s objections, I think it is reasonable to say that we can assume that the beginnings of existence are due to some sort of causal activity and if the universe began to exist it is fair to say that it must have had a first cause. This brings about a further question; does the universe have a beginning?
Scientists would cite the ‘Big Bang’ theory as proof that the universe had a beginning and this certainly seems to be a plausible theory but is it possible that there was something before the ‘Big Bang’ that scientists have not been able to discover yet? From a philosophical point of view, is it logical to suppose that the universe is a chain of infinite causal chains with no beginning? William of Ockham (1290-1350) challenged Aquinas’ ideas that an infinite series was impossible. He thought that causes could be originating rather than conserving causes. That is one cause could bring something else into existence without having to then conserve its existence. The theist would disagree, because if we think of the universe as being in a different state at each part of its existence, with each state causing the next one, and think of the chain stretching infinitely back into the past, we find ourselves asking how the universe got to its present state. The point is, states D.S. Oderberg, “How if the universe is infinitely old, does the chain of causes ever reach now? What gets the universe going? By hypothesis- nothing! But surely it needs something to get it going?” We could argue that the universe got itself going and there was no cause of the universe beginning but just as a train needs an engine to get its carriages moving, a material thing like the universe needs something outside of it to get it going. This external cause must be immaterial otherwise it too would need a cause to get it going. This says the theist, is what we call God.
The next point that must be made is what kind of creator this logic leads to. William Craig thinks that “the kalam cosmological argument leads to a personal creator of the universe” But if the fist cause is an immaterial cause to avoid the infinite regression how can it be a ‘personal creator’ that was the agent at work? Defenders of the kalam argument say that only the free choices of a rational agent could have brought about the creation of the universe. It seems valid to say that the creation of the universe must have required certain characteristics of this creator, such as intelligence, even if we cannot necessarily prove traditional Monotheistic characteristics such as omnibenevolence and omnipotence from the mere fact of creation alone.
Hume criticised the cosmological argument by stating that like causes resemble like effects. He asked if it is unreasonable to postulate male and female Gods who are born and die as the closer the analogy between causes in the world and causes of the world as a whole, the closer should be the resemblance between us who cause things and God.
It seems therefore that using the first cause or kalam argument points to some sort of creator but does not indicate whether this creator is still monitoring the universe. Those who believe in God do not normally think that He just created the world but assume that He is responsible for the fact that the universe continues to be. However it should be noted that Aquinas based his argument on Aristotle whose argument to an unmoved mover did not lead to a personal God in any way similar to the Christian view of God, rather it proved the existence of the creator of the cosmos.
The third of Aquinas’ ‘Five ways’ is known as the argument from contingency. Peter Vardy summarises it thus:
Everything can ‘be’ or ‘not be’, if this is so, given infinite time, at some time everything would not be. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it, therefore something must necessarily exist. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, the series of necessary things cannot go on to infinity as there would then be no explanation for the series, therefore there must be some being ‘having of itself its own necessity’. This is what everyone calls God.
Aquinas’ arguments do not intend to move back in a temporal sequence but seek to establish dependence, the dependence of the world on God now. Aquinas did not think it possible to prove that the universe had a beginning in time, this was simply revealed doctrine. He thought that his arguments established the need for the world to be dependent on God. He arrives At ‘that which is necessary to explain the universe’ or to explain motion, causation or contingency. We cannot know what God is but we do know that God is that which is necessary for the existence of the universe. Leibniz says, “There must exist some one Being of metaphysical necessity, that is, to whose essence existence belongs”
Several well known philosophers have raised arguments against the contingency theory. Hume believed that no proposition about existence could be logically necessary. The opposite of any statement about experience is always perfectly possible. Hume thought that the words ‘necessary being’ had no consistent meaning. Any being claimed to exist may or may not exist. As Hume said, ‘All existential propositions are synthetic’ Kant offered criticisms along similar lines. He mooted that no statement about existence can be necessary as necessity applies only to thought not to being. Kant rejects the idea of God as de re necessary, that is, necessary in and of himself and cause of himself. This means that God is thought of as being in a special category, as it is not necessary to ask what caused God as God is not a something. This, Kant rejects.
Martin Lee suggests that we should question whether God is something or nothing. If He is something then we can ask what caused God whilst if God is nothing then God cannot be an explanation for the universe. Aquinas maintains that this does not apply to God as He is neither something nor nothing but is in his own category. One of the fundamental points of the cosmological argument is whether Aquinas is justified in saying that God is in a category of his own- neither something nor nothing.
It seems therefore that the argument from contingency relies on the necessary existence of a first cause of the universe. Even if we affirm that the phrase ‘God exists’ is true this tells us nothing about the nature of God but does not deny that ‘anything’ is divine. Nor does it deny that we can conclude that God exists by reflecting on the universe.
Finally I wish to consider Descartes’ version of the cosmological argument, it can be considered because the definition of a cosmological argument is one which starts from an aspect of the universe and suggests that its presence can only be explained by a divine cause. In this case Descartes explains his ideas about God by saying that a divine cause (God) made them innate to him. In his third meditation Descartes asked where he got his idea of God from if all ideas have causes. He distinguished three possible categories of cause: innate ideas, adventitious ideas and fictitious ideas. He then goes on to suggest that he can prove that his idea of God is in fact innate and God has placed it in him. This is called the ‘Principle of Causal Adequacy’. Descartes thought that we can ‘distinguish the degree of reality of an idea as an idea, from the degree of reality that an idea possesses in virtue of its object’. This leads on to thinking that the cause of any idea must contain formally or eminently as much reality as the idea possesses both formally and objectively. Therefore, Descartes claims that God must be the cause of his idea about God because nothing else has as much objective reality as this idea. Descartes’ argument is often called the trademark argument as he says, ‘And indeed it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work’
In conclusion about what, if anything the cosmological argument proves, it seems that the cosmological argument has been approached in many different ways with philosophers focussing on proving God or the creator of the universe through looking at the way the universe is. I think that the first cause argument successfully proves that the universe has a cause but Aquinas is mistaken in making the leap from a creator to the Christian idea of an all-loving God who maintains the world. Similarly, it seems that the argument from contingency indicates the necessity of a creator but does not give sufficient proof for the nature of the creator. It is logical that the creator of the universe has necessary existence and is not a material thing but any more than this cannot be assumed from the argument. I believe that Aquinas makes a mistake as a Christian himself in jumping from an impersonal creator of the cosmos to God.
Bibliography
Brian Davies, An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (Oxford University Press, 1982)
Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Peter Vardy, Notes on Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, (Heythrop College, University of London)
William Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, (London, 1979)
Thomas Reid’s Enquiry and Essays, (Indianapolis, 1983)
D.S. Oderberg, Introduction to Metaphysics- lecture handout, (University of Reading, 2000)
Simon Glendinning, Descartes- lecture handout, (University of Reading, 2000)
2110 Words (excluding footnotes and bibliography)
Thomas Reid’s Inquiry and Essays, (Indianapolis, 1983) pg. 330
Hume, A Treatise, as cited in Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 1982
D.S. Oderberg, Introduction to Metaphysics- lecture handout, 2000
William Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, (London, 1979), 149 ff.
Peter Vardy, Notes on Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, (Heythrop College, University of London)
G.W. Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of Things, as cited in Brian Davis, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. (Oxford, 1982)
As cited in Peter Vardy, Notes on the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, (Heythrop College, University of London)
Simon Glendinning, Descartes lecture handout, (Reading University, 2000)
Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy,( Cambridge University Press, 1996)
