RS 1/2 PHIL: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (AS)

Topic 1: The existence of God (i) – Cosmological Arguments

Aim:

At the end of this topic you should be able to:

explain the key aspects of the Cosmological Argument
understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions
explain the different versions of the argument
evaluate the view in support and opposed to the argument as proof of the existence of God
evaluate scholarly views surrounding the argument.

Introduction

The Cosmological Argument (from the Greek ‘cosmos’ meaning universe) uses evidence from the world around us to prove that God exists. It is concerned with the view that the universe cannot be explained without reference to causes and factors outside itself. The universe didn’t make itself since it is contingent and only the existence of a first, necessary cause and mover explains its origin.The Cosmological Argument is a posteriori, synthetic and inductive.

The argument assumes that the universe has not always been in existence, and for it to come into being, an external agent was necessary. We call that agent‘God.’

The Cosmological Argument seeks to answer the following questions:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why does the universe possess the form it does, and not some otherform?
How can the series of events which culminate in the universe beexplained?
Must a chain of movers have a first cause?
Is an infinite regress of causes a sufficient explanation?
What kind of cause or agency is necessary for the universe to comeinto

being?

How can the features (i.e. regularity and purpose) of the universe be

explained?

Some philosophers have gone so far as to declare that such an argument is not even worth considering. Russell doubted whether it was even meaningful, let alone important, to argue the case for a cause of the universe, calling it ‘a question that has no meaning.’ However, Coplestone said that this was an unsatisfactory response, and in Humanitashe wrote:

‘If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of a transcendent being, however the latter may be described…one has to deny the reality of the problem, assert that things ‘just are’.’

For reflection:

Is the search for the cause of the universe simply a waste of time?

The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori one that declares that God is the ultimate, complete and adequate explanation for the universe, and possesses in itself all the necessary characteristics to be that complete explanation. In ‘The Existence of God’ (1979), Richard Swinburne observed:

‘A may be explained by B, and B by C, but in the end there will be some one object on whom all other objects depend. We will have to acknowledge something as ultimate – the great metaphysical issue is what that is’.

For Swinburne, God was the simplest explanation:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God… There could in this respect be no simpler explanation than one which postulated only one cause.’

For reflection:

What does Swinburne mean by saying that God is the simplest explanation?

The views of Aquinas

The most famous Christian application of the argument was offered by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in the Summa Theologica. He suggested ‘Five Ways’ which proved the existence of God. The first three were Cosmological Arguments.

The First Way – from motion

‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.Now whatever is moved is moved by another… It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved… If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another… But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, subsequently, no other mover… Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.’

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Article, ‘Whether God exists’,
cited in Hick (ed.), 1964)

We may summarize the first argument like this:

nothing can move itself, since nothing can be both mover and moved, yet things are evidently in motion.
an infinite chain of movers that has no beginning can have no successive or ultimate movers.
there must therefore be a first mover that causes motion in all things, and this we call God.

Aquinas was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who said that all objects had the potential to change and become different in some way.

Aquinas called motion ‘the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality’. For example, fire, which is actually hot, changes wood, which is potentially hot, to a state of being actually hot. Motion is a change of state but requires an explanation since nothing can be in both potentiality and actuality at the same time -nothing can be simultaneously hot and cold.

For reflection:

What other examples of potentiality to actuality are there?

But in order to be changed – for potential to become actual – there must be a third party involved – for example, for something to change from being cold to being hot, there must be a source of heart – that source is the third party or, as Aristotle called it, the ‘efficient cause.’

This means that something must bring about the change and it must be something upon which that which is changed is dependent. Aquinas argues that God is the initiator of change and motion in all things. He causes everything, including the universe, to begin – but God has no beginning. He is, said Aquinas, the ‘unmovedmover’, who causes everything else to change, but does not change himself.

Seminar work:

In what ways is the argument from motion a convincing one?

The Second Way – from cause

‘The Second Way is from the nature of efficient 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… Therefore it is necessary to admit to a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.’(ibid.)

This argument can be summarized as follows:

all things are caused since nothing can be its own cause
there must be a first cause (God) on which all other causes depend
an infinite chain of causes is rejected, since in an infinite chain, there can be

no first cause

God is therefore the first cause of all that exists.

In this first way, Aquinas observed that whilst all other beings are caused, God is not. God is not just the first cause in a chain of causes; he is one on whom all subsequent causes depend. In the Second Way, Aquinas goes further by rejecting the notion ofan infinite chain of causes and insisting that without a first cause, there could be no subsequent causes. In effect, without a first cause, there would be nothing at all.

To clarify Aquinas’s arguments so far, we can say that:

the universe exists
everything in existence has a cause and that which is in a state

of motion must be moved

something which is moved cannot move itself
a chain of causes and effects, movers and moved cannot go

backwards to infinity

there must therefore be a first cause and first mover, which

does not require something else to move it

this first cause/mover is dependent on nothing else to come

into existence

this first, self-causing cause, self-moving mover, is God
God exists.

Seminar work:

Is the argument from cause a strong one or a weak one? Why?

The Third Way – from necessity and contingency

‘The Third Way is taken from possibility and necessity… 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 if everything cannotbe, then at one time there was nothing in existence…(and) 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 existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.’(ibid.)

The third way is slightly different. Since beings and items in the universe are capable of existing or not existing (i.e. are contingent), it is impossible that all beings should be capable of existing or not existing, since at one time it is possible that nothing existed at all. If this were the case, then where would existence come from? There has to be a necessary being that does not cease to exist. Coplestone said that if we do not accept the existence of a necessary being, then;

‘We do not explain the presence here and now of beings capable of existing or not existing. Therefore we must affirm the existence of a being which is absolutely necessary and completely independent.’ (ibid)

Aquinas’s Third Way may therefore be summarized as:

everything in our physical universe is dependent upon factors beyond itself’ (contingent).
the presence of each thing can only be explained by reference to those factors which themselves depend on other factors.
these factors demand an ultimate explanation in the form of a necessary being (God), dependent on nothing outside himself.
the very nature of things in the universe demands that God exists necessarily and not contingently.

Seminar work:

Is the argument from necessity more or less convincing than the arguments from cause and motion? Why?

Infinite Regress

Aquinas believed that we would not find the first cause of things by simply going further and further back into time (‘infinite regress’). He said that there must be a beginning point. J. L. Mackie gave the example that we would not expect a railway train consisting of an infinite number of carriages to move anywhere without an engine. God is like an engine. He is not just another carriage, but the thing that has the power to move without requiring something else to move him.

For reflection:

What is ‘infinite regress’?

Coplestone’s view

Coplestone supported Aquinas’s rejection of infinite regress on the grounds that an infinite chain of contingent beings could only ever consist of contingent beings, which would never be able to bring themselves into existence. The most an infinite series of contingent beings could do is maintain an eternal presence of contingent beings; it cannot explain how they came into being in the first place:

You see, I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of the events – I mean a horizontal series, so to speak – if such infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree relevant to the situation. If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.(Cited in Hick 1964)

Coplestone’s argument can be summed up as:

everything that exists now was caused to exist by an external cause
therefore the universe must have been caused by an external cause
that cause must not depend on anything else (non-contingent)
yet it must exist, otherwise the universe would not be here
it is, therefore, a ‘necessary being’
this is God.

Seminar work:

Is Coplestone’s argument a convincing one? Why/why not?

Leibnitz

In his work‘Theodicy’, Gottfried Leibniz explained the Cosmological Argument in the form of the principle of sufficient reason:

‘Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states, and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’

Leibniz claimed that even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation, or a ‘sufficient reason’ for its existence, since we need to know why there is something rather than nothing. By going backwards in time forever we will never arrive at such a complete explanation. There is nothing within the universe to show why it exists, so the reason for its existence must lie outside of it.

Swinburne

Richard Swinburne (1996) claimed that the most convincing proof lay in the facts that things actually exist at all, since, statistically, it is more likely that nothing exists rather than something:

‘It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God, nothing. But there is something. And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. But so many particles! Not everything will have an explanation. But…the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts. 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’.

The Cosmological Argument still finds support in modern science today. The Big Bang theory itself proposes a beginning point for the universe, not an infinite regress of events.

Seminar work:

Who is the more convincing – Leibnitz or Swinburne? Why?

The Kalam Argument

The Islamic form of the Cosmological Argument, known as the Kalam Argument, was proposed by al-Kindi (c. 870) and al-Ghazali (c. 1058 - 1111). ‘Kalam’ is Arabic for ‘argue’ or ‘discuss’. The Argument proposes that the fact that everything has a cause is a basic law of the universe and, therefore, the universe must have a cause. This cause must be different from its effect. So, if the cause of the universe is different from the universe, then it must be non-physical in nature. This cause is God. It other words:

whatever comes into being must have a cause
the universe came into being
the universe must have a cause
the cause exists without having been caused by something else
the cause is a non-physical one
God is the cause.

The principle is that if something does not contain its own reason for existing, then it must have been caused by something else, and that by something else again. Only when we arrive at a self-causing, necessary being can we say we have reached the end of the chain of causes and effects.

However, it must be shown that the universe had a starting point in order for the Kalam Argument to work. This is done by understanding the nature of time and infinity. In a sense, there is an infinite amount of time between each second of time. This can be shown through ‘Zeno’s Paradox’. It goes like this:

a man walks half the distance from A to B in 60 minutes
he walks half of the remaining distance in the next 60 minutes
he walks half the remaining distance in the next 60 minutes
if he carries on like this, he will never reach point B
there is such a concept as ‘infinity’.

For reflection:

What does ‘infinity’ really mean?

Craig’s View

William Craig applied this in his book ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument’(1979) to prove the existence of God like this:

the present moment exists
therefore time cannot be infinite
this means the universe must have had a start
in order to have come into existence, the universe must have been caused to exist
this cause is called God
as God chose to create the world, then God must be a personal being.

Craig wrote:

‘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…the kalam cosmological argument leads to a personal creator of the universe.’

Miller

In ‘God and Reason’ (1972), Miller criticised the Kalam Argument on the grounds that it was logically impossible. He argued that a new day could not be added to what was already an infinity of days. Moreover, if there is an infinity of days, the present day would never be reached, because an infinite number of days would have to have passed first. Miller then applied this to God:

‘The question, ‘Where does God come from?’ can thus be discarded as ill-conceived, because it construes God to be like other things, the sort of being that can come and go. If God himself can come into being, then he cannot possibly be the cause of all things that come into being and would not, therefore, be what the theist means by God.’