BELIEF IN GOD: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

BELIEF IN GOD: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

By: Daniel McMillin

GOD IS A NECESSARY BEING

God is a necessary being. There is no possible world where God could not exist because His existence is required. Why? The answer relies on the question of the origins of the universe and its first cause. We may formulate this argument in two ways, as they are presented by Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig.

Thomistic Cosmological Argument

Aquinas answers the question, “Whether God Exists?” in Five Ways (quinque viae):

Let’s break it down further to clarify our terms and see what Aquinas is arguing here:[1]

(1) Motion implies a mover. This sequence cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore, there must be an unmoved Mover, (2) Nothing exists prior to itself, therefore there must be an efficient cause of all things which is itself the singular uncaused Cause, (3) If every being is contingent, it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would be caused to exist. This implies that there must be a Being which is uncaused and the necessary ground for contingent existence, (4) The reality that some things are better and some things are worse implies that there is an utmost by which all things are compared. This utmost thing must be the greatest of all possible beings without weakness. This being, then, must be every perfection, and (5) The physical world manifests design and purpose. Since the world manifests design and purpose there must be an ultimate being who designed and purposed all things.[2]

Now, for our purposes, we will focus on the first three ways in depth:

(1) Motion implies a mover.[1] As Aquinas says, “Whatever is in motion is put into motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.”[2] From our experience, we see that behind every motion is a mover (every cause has an effect). In other words, things that move have a mover because “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.”[3] When we see a ball bouncing, we know that someone pushed, threw, or bounced the ball and put it into motion. We do not assume that the ball moved itself and was moved, as though it were simultaneously actual and potential, that is, both being moved and being the mover.[4] This sequence cannot extend forever (ad infinitum). That is, the chain of motion is not endless or infinite. If that were the case, then there would be an infinite chain of moved movers, which is an absurdity. There must be a primary mover behind every secondary mover. Therefore, there must be an unmoved Mover. As Aquinas concludes, “It is necessary to arrive at a first mover put in motion by no other; and this everyone understand to be God.”[5]

(2) Every effect has an efficient cause. Nothing exists prior to itself; therefore there must be an efficient cause of all things, which is itself the singular uncaused Cause. Aquinas says, “In the world of sense 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.”[6] We know that behind every effect is a cause. For example, a painter, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, is the efficient cause of the Mona Lisa, and this masterful painting is the effect of the artist Da Vinci. Likewise, a sculptor, like Michelangelo, is the efficient cause of the Pietà, whereas this sculpture is the product or effect of Michelangelo’s handiwork. But what does Aquinas mean by “efficient cause”? Aristotle categorized causality into four categories, including efficient cause, which refers to a “source” of change or motion.[7] Aquinas argues that since a cause brings something into being, there cannot be a self-caused effect. In other words, self-causation is an impossibility because no effect can be the cause of itself.[8] Why? Things do not just come into being on their own. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time. A painting cannot paint itself, and a sculpture cannot chisel away at itself. There had to be an efficient cause, a painter and a sculptor. If this is true about something as trivial as a painting or mundane as a sculpture, then what about something as grand as our solar system or as magnificent as the Grand Canyon? We may observe that behind every effect is a cause, but there still remains a need to halt an endless cycle of causation or an infinite regress of causes. There must be an uncaused first cause.[9] Just like when we witness a chain of dominoes falling on another, we recognize there has to be a cause that started the chain of motion, yet is uncaused and unaffected by the effect. That is why, as Aquinas argues, “it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”[10]

(3) If every being is contingent, it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would be caused to exist. This implies that there must be a Being which is uncaused and the necessary ground for contingent existence. Aquinas says, “We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be.”[11] When Aquinas speaks of “possible” beings, he is talking about things that exist in reality but can potentially exist or not exist. That is, they are things that do exist but do not have to exist. We know this because if a thing did not exist (past tense) but now exists, it did not always have to exist. If a thing does exist but will not exist (future tense), then it does not always have to exist. Thus, possible beings are not necessary beings but are temporary and contingent beings. But there has to be something that always had to exist (eternal) and has to exist always (necessary). This being is what we call “God.” An objection may arise that asks: What if there were nothing in existence? Aquinas responds, “There would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have began to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd.”[12] This then brings us to the question: Why does something exist? It is not because all things came into existence on their own, but because someone or something caused them to be. This is based upon the contingency of all living things. A “contingent” being is a possible being that requires a cause of being and becoming. That is, they cannot exist on their own. The question of “to be or not to be” is a question that does not and cannot apply to God, but does to all contingent beings. God’s existence is through Himself (His essence is His existence, while all other beings exist through other things—what it is, with contingent beings, is not identical to that it is.[13] The essence and existence compose the whole for composite beings, and their existence comes from something outside of itself. Thus, all composite beings need a cause. “There must be a necessary being that exists as the source of all contingent things otherwise nothing would exist in the first place, since contingent things do not bring themselves into existence.”[14]

Does the Christian God Exist?

Each of these ways is irrefutable proof that God exists. Aquinas has set a very high standard for demonstrating that God’s existence is not simply possible but necessary. He does not aim to persuade people that God exists but sets out to prove without question, without error, and without a (reasonable) doubt, that God exists. The argument concludes there is a God, but does not set out to prove the God of the Bible is that God. Many critics object that this argument fails because while it may set out to prove a “God” exists, it does not prove the Christian God exists. It does not prove that there is only one God that exists (monotheism) or that a Trinity exists (trinitarianism), since it is possible that a council of gods exists (pantheism). However, many of these critics quickly miss what Aquinas is talking about since Aquinas never argues this point in his five ways. In fact, Aquinas will argue later that our knowledge of the Christian God and His triunity is based solely upon the revealed word of God. Aquinas will investigate God’s essence and triunity in articles 3-43.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig contributes a critical argument for the existence of God that has created controversy among the lofty philosophers of our age and popular atheists who interact with his argumentation. Much of this debate is due to the simplicity of this argument, along with the undeniable validity of his premises. He argues:

The first point would appear to be uncontroversial because it follows naturally from our experiences of reality, where every cause has an effect and something cannot come into being from nothing. When we witness the beginning of a project (writing a paper, taking out the trash, cleaning the dishes, etc.), we understand that there is a cause (someone wrote the paper, took out the trash, and cleaned the dishes, etc.). It is unreasonable to conclude that when I leave dishes in the sink, go to work, and come back home to find the dishes in the dishwasher, there was no cause behind this effect. Someone or something must have taken the dishes and cleaned them. We also see that this is true from our experience, since we are the products of our parents. It is irrational to think that we are uncaused, as though we had no beginning. One would think that to assert “whatever begins to exist has a cause” would be universally accepted, but they would be sadly mistaken. Those who desire to object to this argument have attempted to dismantle this point by saying it is possible that something can come from nothing.[4] In response, we may ask, what examples are there available of nothing producing something?

The second point is a subject of debate since there is still a lack of scientific clarity, although it does seem that cosmologists are advancing the range of understanding in this respect. Their research tends to lean towards the idea that there was a beginning of the universe. Of course, there are those who object to this proposal and advocate for a beginningless or eternal universe. However, for our purposes, we may argue that it is more likely that the universe had a beginning than not. Thus, it is highly possible that the universe would have a cause if it began to exist. What evidence is there for this argument? It is philosophically and mathematically impossible to have an infinite number of things. Scientifically, there is evidence that suggests the universe is expanding and the law of thermodynamics leans towards the conclusion that the universe must have had a beginning.

Notice the conclusion is not “therefore God.” You may have noticed there is no mention of “God” in any of the premises for Craig’s argument, so how do we go from arguing that the universe began to asserting that God must exist? The point of this argument is not to establish “there is a God who made everything,” but that the universe had a cause, which forces us to investigate the viable options available to answer the question: “Who or what is the cause of the universe?”[5] Now that we have established that the universe began, we may press on to the question, “How did the universe begin?” To use Leibniz’s famous question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Here, I am arguing that God is the best option available for why there is something rather than nothing.[6] Sokoloski says, “The Kalam argument concludes that something outside of the universe, or something that transcends the universe, must be the cause of the universe. The theist argues that God is the source of the universe and is not caused or bound by anything. God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause. God is eternal and outside of the system and therefore is not bound by the system.”[7] This is the path that I will use to argue for God’s existence.

The fact that the universe had a beginning suggests that “the universe was brought into existence by something which is greater than and beyond it.”[8] This being is (1) powerful enough to move or cause the universe to exist, (2) independent or free from the universe that He caused into being, (3) immaterial since He cannot be the same thing He has caused into being, (4) eternal or timeless because He cannot exist within time since He has caused time to exist, (5) intelligent and conscious since the universe is the design of an intellectual mind, and (6) immutable or unchangeable since He causes all things to exist He cannot be caused or changed.

What we can know about the first cause of the universe is that He is, as Aristotle said, an “Unmoved Mover.” We may conclude that this being is God because only a maximally great and necessary being could possibly cause the universe to exist. We may conclude that God is the unmoved mover who acts and creates. He is the first cause, and creation is the effect of that first cause. Craig will further argue that we can know the first cause “must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes…this entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause. Finally, and most remarkably such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal.”[9]

Works Cited:

[1] This is borrowed from my paper on Aseity and is expanded as needed.

[2] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:2.3.

[3] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 111.

[4][4] For examples, Craig engages with the criticisms offered by Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackie, and Daniel Dennett.

[5] The three alternative options are as follows: (1) Eternal (beginningless) universe—If there is no beginning to the universe then why is there is evidence of temporal regress? (2) The universe caused itself—If there was nothing, there would still be nothing, so how is there something? (3) Quantum fluctuation and Multiverse theory—What is the origin of the quantum fluctuation and the multiverse?

[6] “Defenders of the cosmological argument are attempting to show that the existence of the universe is best explained by referencing a first cause or sufficient reason (God).” (Sokoloski 65)

[7] Sokoloski, 72-73.

[8] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 150.

[9] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 152.