Unveiling the Cosmic Key: The Quest for God in the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is a classical philosophical and theological argument aimed at establishing the existence of a necessary and uncaused first cause or prime mover responsible for the existence of the universe. This article provides an overview of the cosmological argument, its historical development, key principles, objections, and responses.

This philosophical defense for God’s existence is one of the oldest and most influential arguments for the existence of God. It seeks to demonstrate the existence of a necessary and uncaused first cause or prime mover responsible for the existence of the universe (Craig, 2000). It has been articulated by various philosophers and theologians throughout history and has undergone refinement and adaptation over the centuries.

Thomas Aquinas, a pivotal figure in medieval philosophy, asserted that reason alone could demonstrate the existence of a necessary being, at the core of the cosmological argument, separate from the realm of faith. Furthermore, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the polymath of the Enlightenment era, extended the argument’s reach by highlighting the principle of sufficient reason, which posits that every existence must have a reason.

However, the cosmological argument also met its critics, notably David Hume, who challenged the concept of causation and the presumption of a necessary being. Immanuel Kant, another towering figure in philosophy, argued that traditional arguments, including the cosmological, provide an idea of God as a regulative principle rather than certain knowledge.

In contemporary philosophy, William Lane Craig has defended and refined the Kalam cosmological argument, asserting that the universe’s definite beginning necessitates a transcendent cause. Richard Swinburne, another modern philosopher, has further contributed by contending that the cosmological argument supports the existence of a personal God endowed with attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

These historical comments showcase the enduring significance of the cosmological argument, demonstrating its capacity to provoke discussion and reflection within the realms of philosophy and theology.

Principle of Causality

The cosmological argument begins with the fundamental principle that everything that exists has a cause. This principle is grounded in our everyday experience and observations that events and objects in the universe are caused by something else (Aquinas, 1265-1274). Here is the argument broken down into logical steps:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This argument is a simplified representation of the cosmological argument’s core principle based on the idea that everything in the universe has a cause or reason for its existence. The conclusion suggests that there must be a cause or explanation for the existence of the universe itself.

Various versions of the cosmological argument then go on to explore the nature and implications of this cause or first cause. It’s important to note there are skeptics who reject the syllogism of the principle of causality.

For example, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher wrote in his essay “Why I am Not A Christian,” a critique of this proposition by saying if everything must have a cause, then this principle itself should have a cause. This objection points to a potential inconsistency in the argument where proponents exempt the first cause (God) from needing a cause.

However, when someone asks, “Who created God?” they are implicitly assuming that God is a contingent being, like everything else in the universe, and therefore must have a creator. But the cosmological argument specifically posits the existence of a necessary being that does not require a cause. Therefore, asking who created God misunderstands the argument’s premise, making it a fallacious question in this context.

Another rebuttal of this argument is from J.L. Mackie, who wrote: “The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against The Existence of God,” in which he says the cosmological argument assumes there must be a necessary being rather than the universe itself being the necessary causation of all life.

The problem with taking the position that the universe is necessary is the apparent contingent nature of our world. The presence of physical laws, constants, and initial conditions demonstrates the universe lacks self-explanatory power. If the universe were a necessary being, it should have the inherent property of existence without relying on anything external, but it’s apparent this is not the case.

The Contingency Argument

The contingency argument, a variation of the cosmological argument, is a philosophical and theological argument that explores the concept of contingency in the universe. It posits that contingent beings or things—those that could have not existed or could cease to exist without contradiction—require an explanation for their existence.

The argument contends that the ultimate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is a necessary being, often identified as God. Let’s examine both the strengths and weaknesses of this argument.

Some of the strengths include intuitive appeal, logical structure, and supports the existence of a necessary being. It’s intuitively appealing because it agrees with existential reality. We live in a world where many creatures and physical objects are contingent, which makes it reasonable that there must be some external force that brought them into existence.

Second, the argument follows a logically structured pattern. It moves from the observation of contingent beings to the conclusion that there must be a necessary being as their ultimate cause, adhering to the principles of logical reasoning. Finally, the contingency argument provides a framework for inferring the existence of a necessary being or uncaused cause, which aligns with the concept of God in many theological traditions.

Some weaknesses are the contingency argument commits a fallacy of special pleading by exempting the necessary being (God) from the principle of causality. In other words, if everything requires a cause, then why not apply this principle to God as well?

Moreover, antagonists of this view contend that even if the argument establishes the need for a necessary being, it doesn’t explain why this being exists. This objection raises concerns about the argument’s potential to lead to an infinite regress of explanations. However, I would argue that a natural explanation like a “multi-verse” where this universe is contingent upon also leads to an infinite regress because the question always remains: “What universe beget the following universe ad infinitum?”

The Need for a First Cause

The argument proceeds by tracing the chain of causation backward, leading to the question of what caused the first cause. If everything in the universe is contingent and dependent on something else, there must exist a first cause that is not contingent but necessary (Craig, 2000). This necessary being is identified as God.

Aristotle, a foundational figure in Western philosophy, delved into the idea of a prime mover in his work “Physics.” He contended that “The existence of motion among things demands an immovable substance as the principle of the motion.” Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover served as a precursor to later discussions about the need for an uncaused cause.

This first cause is often described as an uncaused cause or a prime mover. It is unique in that it is itself uncaused and does not depend on anything else for its existence. It is considered the ultimate source of all causation in the universe (Aquinas, 1265-1274).

Al-Ghazali, an influential Islamic philosopher, argued for the need for a cause for the beginning of the world. He stated, “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” Al-Ghazali’s position reflects the idea that the existence of the world requires a cause or a first mover.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a prominent philosopher of the Enlightenment era, emphasized the principle of sufficient reason and the interconnectedness of all things. He stated, “Nothing takes place in the universe without a sufficient reason; all is connected by ties of causation.” Leibniz’s perspective underscored the need for a first cause to provide the sufficient reason for the existence and interconnectedness of contingent beings.

Conclusion

The cosmological argument remains a topic of philosophical debate and discussion. While it presents a compelling case for the existence of a necessary, uncaused being as the ultimate explanation for the universe, critics argue that it relies on philosophical assumptions and does not necessarily lead to the specific attributes of a traditional theistic God. Furthermore, alternative naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe, such as the Big Bang theory, have been proposed (Krauss, 2012).

In conclusion, the cosmological argument offers a profound perspective on the nature of causation and the existence of a first cause, but its persuasive power ultimately depends on one’s philosophical and theological convictions.

References

1. Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica.
2. Craig, W. L. (2000). The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Library of Philosophy and Religion.
3. Krauss, L. M. (2012). A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. Free Press.
4. Leibniz, G. W. (1714). Monadology.
5. Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford University Press.