Cosmological Arguments

In LifeU we discussed a tradition of arguments for the existence of God called cosmological arguments. These types of arguments attempt to show that God is the first cause of the universe. The arguments have been formulated in various ways but we discussed two of the different approaches to the cosmological arguments. One was called the argument from contingency and the other was the kalaam cosmological argument made famous by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Here on this blog I will review these two arguments and make a case that the universe must have a first cause and the cause must be a personal God.

The Cosmological Arguments

I formulated the argument from contingency by rewording the version William Lane Craig uses. The argument goes as follows:

1, Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence either by the necessity of its own nature or
    by an external cause.

2. If the universe has an external cause that cause is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. The universe does not exist by the necessity of its own nature but has an external cause

5. Therefore, God is the cause of the universe's existence.

This is an example of a syllogism. Points 1-4 are called premises and point 5 is the conclusion. The syllogism is logically valid, meaning that if premises 1-4 are true, then point 5 logically follows. So the job of the person using this argument is to show that the first four premises are true. So are the first four premises true? Let's explore them.

Premise 1

In this first premise there is a distinction between a thing existing by the necessity of its own nature and having an external cause for its existence. Something existing by the necessity of its own nature means that it had to exist and it always existed. Something existing by an external cause means its existence is contingent, or dependent on a foreign cause. Premise 1 is logically self evident. There is no middle option between the two options given that makes sense. Either something had to exist or not. I do not imagine an atheist really denying this first point.

Premise 2

This premise and premise four are the most difficult to show. First we should define what mean by the universe. The universe can be defined as all matter, space, time and energy. If something causes the universe to exist then the being must be non-material, all powerful, intelligent and timeless. These attributes are by definition, attributes of God. 

Premise two is logically equivalent to the way the atheist would formulate an argument in favor of his worldview, The atheists would say that since the universe did not have an external cause, there is no God. So when talking to an atheist one should point out that premise two is logically equivalent to a premise they would use. 

Premise 3

If one denies that the universe exists then they have to deny that they exist but then who would be the one  denying his own existence? Our existence and the universe's existence are examples of transcendental first principles of knowledge. You cannot rationally doubt the existence of either without committing self contradictions. In other words, we exist and the universe exists because its rationally impossible to deny it. This is very similar thinking to the transcendental argument for God's existence from a previous post.

Premise 4

This premise is the most crucial premise and when thinking about this premise we can include a whole new syllogism called the kalaam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig. Craig formulates this arguments with two premises and a conclusion.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Premise 1 is logically self evident and premise 2 is the one that needs to be demonstrated the most. If the universe did not have a beginning that means that the number of past events in history is infinite. This is impossible for you cannot add a new event to an infinite number of past events because the number of events would still be numerically infinite. In other words, you never could arrive at the new event. At the bottom of the post I will include a video by William Lane Craig showing the impossibility of an infinite number of past events using in illustration called "Hilbert's Hotel"

In LifeU we showed the impossibility of an infinite number of past events called "Andrew's Lineage." I asked Andrew where he came from. He said his parents. Then I asked him who they came from. He said his grandparents. I asked him who they came from. He said his great grandparents. We did this until we had added seven greats to his grandparents. Could that have gone on forever? If so, how could Andrew have ever been born if his lineage goes back infinitely. In other words we find in our lives how our existence was not necessary but was contingent upon our parents and they on theirs and so on and so forth. So human nature does not possess existence necessarily but has to receive existence from something that owns existence or exists by its own nature. 

So the universe, because its a series of causes and effects or events, had to have a beginning. 

Therefore Premise 5 is true.

So by this argument we have shown that God is the creator of the universe and also that he is all powerful, non-material, intelligent and eternal. But I also say we can show that God has to be a person.

If the universe began to exist its cause must have freely chosen to create it or else the universe would be eternal because the cause and effect would both have always existed simultaneously. For example say the our world contained nothing but water and the temperature was always below freezing, the water would have always been frozen because the cause of water freezing, the temperature, would have always existed alongside its effect. But since the universe began to exist the cause must be a being with free will and a free will is an attribute of a personal being.

For more on this argument check out reasonablefaith.org

Here is the video explaining "Hilbert's Hotel"

Jason Anderson