Cosmology and the Existence of God - Essay Example

6 April 2008 Cosmology and the Existence of God This paper will discuss the extent to which the cosmological arguments of T Aquinas, Herbert McCabe and others are capable of proving God’s existence. The prime concern of the cosmological argument aaccording to Rowe is to establish a ‘first cause’ or ‘necessary being’, its next main purpose is to identify that ‘necessary being as God’ (1975, 6). Craig’s typology differentiates between 3 kinds of cosmological arguments:- (1) The earliest argument propounded by Aquinas, is based on the fact that it is not possible to infinitely trace cause and effect as an essentially ordered infinite regress. (2) The Kalām argument holds the view that an infinite temporal regress is an impossibility along with an actual infinite. (3) The third, cosmological arguments by Leibniz and Clarke are based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1980, 282). 1. Thomas Aquinas adapted Aristotle and Avicenna’s thinking to form his cosmological argument in which he states that the universe is the result of a ‘first cause’ that is itself uncaused, and this ultimate cause according to him, is God. The premise of his argument basically states that every thing that was once non existent has a cause. Since, according to the second premise –something that is finite and dependent (contingent) cannot create itself. In his third premise Aquinas stated that a causal chain cannot stretch back into eternity. This is why Aquinas argues --there must be a first cause-(God)-or there must be something that is not an effect. Other cosmological veterans speculating about God’s existence - (like Aquinas) take the ‘first cause’ to be ‘God’. Aquinas’s argument is based on the fact that God has to exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause to explain its existence. This cause is furnished by the concept of the creation of the universe by a supernatural being outside it, and this being is assumed to be God. Aquinas’s cosmological argument is based on Aristotle’s belief in a ‘first cause It was Aquinas who interpreted Aristotle’s uncaused cause as ‘God’ by modifying his deistic view into a theistic one. According to his cosmological argument, every event has a cause; but every cause has been caused by another. To avoid endless regression, we have to postulate an uncaused and eternal first cause –(or necessary being that created itself)-and that is God. Aquinas wrote, "We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls God." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, c.1260 CE In his book, ‘The Governance of the World’ Aquinas propounds five ways- of proving the existence of God. In the process Aquinas argues for the presence of a benevolent order in the universe that makes even unintelligent entities work towards some goal. On the basis of these phenomenon, Aquinas argues in favour of the existence that is an essential part of this benevolent order. Aquinas stated that -‘Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence and this being we call God.’ Aquinas’s contingency argument follows in Aristotle’s footsteps by stating that there has to be a cause to the universe because according to Aristotle, every effect had to have a cause. (This theory is now held suspect by quantum physics). Aquinas identified that primary cause for the universe as God-‘since the universe is contingent or dependent on particular circumstances, its existence has to have a non-contingent cause’. Aquinas goes on to claim that, even an eternal universe owes its existence to Aristotles Uncaused Cause, “That we understand to be God." The Cosmological Argument as such was one of the first arguments for God’s existence-(since God cannot be known by the five senses due to His transcendental nature, his existence had to be proved in other ways) The argument for the existence of God was adapted by Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways that take motion, cause and contingency into account to state that nothing that is moved or caused to move can do so on its own—just like a contingent entity could never explain all the causes—only an external agent could do that. According to Aquinas’s ‘posteriori’ argument: ‘All events have a cause’ and since the universe is an event,’ it too has to have a prime cause. This is an ‘a posteriori’ or after the fact or event argument. It refers to knowledge that is gleaned by observation and experience as empirical knowledge. Empiricists, like Hume argue that all knowledge is essentially ‘a posteriori’ and that ‘a priori’ – (before the fact) - knowledge is not possible since it reaches a conclusion without experience or observation. (A mathematical truth like 1+1=2 is an ‘a priori’ truth independent of experiment or observation.) Aquinas ‘a posteriori’ argument from contingency is different to a first-cause argument since he assumes the possibility of a universe that always existed due to ‘universal causation’. According to Aquinas once the universe’s existence is contingent; it may or may not have existed at a particular time. From this Aquinas postulates that nothing existed in the beginning. For a contingent being to exist –it must be caused by a ‘Necessary Being’ who is eternal and acts as the fount of all contingent beings. Aristotle, who first spelt out the cosmological argument believed that the infinite universe has no beginning. Aquinas too conceived of God as a timeless being, who was yet able to see all time. The Cosmological Argument’s Christian form, linked to Aquinas, includes his famous ‘Five Ways’ for proving the existence of God:- 1. Concept of motion: - In the First proof, Aquinas used the concept of motion, defined by him as ‘the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality’. Aquinas argued that God is the prime cause or primary mover who first brought about change and motion in all things: ‘In the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another. But this cannot go on to infinity…Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.’ 2. The first cause: - Aquinas deduced that all other beings except God are caused by something before them. God is the first cause, the beginning of the chain of causes on whom depend the other causes: ‘In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. …Therefore it is necessary to admit to a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.’ 3. Necessity and contingency: - The Third proof presumes that all beings in the universe can or cannot exist. This makes it possible for the universe to have not existed in the past or ‘may not exist’ in the future so that theoretically the end of the universe is also a possibility. Aquinas argues that therefore a ‘necessary’ being that exists outside the same universe created the contingents. ‘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.’ 4. The fourth proof arises from the variations of goodness, truth and nobility that are found in things. Why are some people more noble and truer then others? Aquinas argues that just as there are so many kinds of heat but behind all these there is fire, behind all good and noble people there is God. Just like heat has to have a cause, so does the universe. “Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.” 5. The fifth proof that God existed according to Aquinas was ‘the Principle of Sufficient Reason’-(the fact that some entities like planets lack reason, yet operate according to a plan or design. This means that there is a purpose between seemingly erratic events. Why is it that un-intelligent things (Aquinas argues), also aim for results –this according to Aquinas shows the presence of a knowing and intelligent God. “Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God,” he says. For Aquinas, Gods essence is identical with Gods existence… "...where the light of the candle is dependent on the candles continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant". This form of the argument is far more difficult to separate from a purely "first-cause" argument …because here the "first cause" is insufficient without the candles or vessels continued existence.” George Hayward Joyce William Paley’s Classic Design (teleological ) argument seems to have drawn its strength from the ‘Principle of Sufficient reason’ by stating that since multiple parts coordinate to achieve a goal, the smooth functioning of the universe is proof that it was created by an intelligent designer who is far superior to human beings. Aquinas therefore concludes that the innate intelligence behind nature is God. This idea was dealt more then a blow by Charles Darwin’s proof of the theory of Evolution that gives a purely biological interpretation of creation and life as we know it. Other critics of the designer theory question the inference of a single designer. Since nature is replete with ‘designs to defeat designs.’ And even if there is only one designer, the critics argue, he does not seem to care about the suffering of human beings-since we continue to suffer. Critics also question that if God designed the world then who designed God’s mind? And if God exists without ‘a designer’, why can’t nature? If God is all powerful AND all merciful, (the argument runs) why does God not irradiate the sufferings of the world? In chapter four of his book, ‘God Matters’ Herbert McCabe discusses “the involvement of God” in the world. McCabe is concerned with the question –‘To what extent does God involve himself in the world?’ Does God experience suffering? Due to God’s transcendent nature, Aquinas argues that we cannot know God’s nature. We can only know what God is not. For Aquinas the proof of God’s nature as revealed in Christ still leaves God beyond the realm of human understanding. McCabe argues for the existence of a suffering feeling God - “If the creator is the reason for everything that is, there can be no actual being which does not have the creator as its centre holding it in being”. McCabe’s claims that when human beings are compassionate to one another they are trying to be “What God is all the time: united with and within the life of our friend”. Ultimately McCabe affirms Aquinas’s belief that only a transcendent God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent enough to be intimately involved with each life-(much more than to one another.) McCabe goes on to argue that “the doctrine of the incarnation is such that the story of Jesus is not just the story of God’s involvement with his creatures but that it is actually the “story” of God” Criticism:-Aquinas’s cosmological argument has been criticized for presuming that everything but God needs a cause. In this sense Aquinas’s argument has been criticized for doing nothing to establish the existence of God. Even though it proves a first cause, it does not prove that this first cause is yet in existence or is aware of human beings; it does not prove any other Godlike qualities that would distinguish it from purely natural phenomenon. Bertrand Russell interprets the contingent being as the universe, but denies that the universe needs explaining. The universe is "just there, and thats all" (Russell, 175). In Russell’s view, since the proof of a cause depends on our observation, it makes little sense to try and find the cause of a universe that we cannot experience. He therefore argues that instead of having a primordial cause, the universe just is. David Hume’s empirical method claims that when the parts are explained so is the whole. David Hume criticizes the fact that Aquinas’s argument depends on the premise of a ‘necessary being.’ Hume also points out that the principle that ‘nothing causes itself’ is wrong as matter in physics can appear from nowhere. Both Hume and Bertrand Russell find the idea of a ‘necessary being’ a far cry, since even presuming there is a ‘necessary being’ why should that being fit the idea of God? This is why critics blame Aquinas for making an inductive leap of logic - from the need for a ‘first mover’ to identifying the ‘first mover’ as God—even though nothing in his argument led logically to that conclusion. Critics also question the need for ‘God’ to be a self-explanatory, necessary being- and thus an exception. For Hume the fact that the universe exists can be explained not from a ‘first cause’ but from its parts. And the parts can be explained in terms of their own nature. This means that the universe need not be a contingent entity-(i.e. dependent on something else for its existence.) If the parts are necessary beings then that explains the whole. To sum up- “The cosmological proof of God was supposed by Thomas to answer the Question’ utrum Deus si’t, but he did not really prove the existence of God; what he proved was the nature of the divine, . . . Aquinas answered the question “What is the nature of the divine?,” but not the question “Who is God?” (Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 12). 2. The Kalām Cosmological Argument: - Belief in a primordial cause can also be traced to the Islamic tradition. The Islamic version of the cosmological argument developed by Al-Ghazali denies an everlasting world and uses this as a premise for his first proof for God. His argument in a nut shell, claims that since the ‘first cause’ is not the effect of a cause - it is independent and beyond the boundaries of both time and space. In that sense God is a transcendental being who created the universe, but is far above it. So while Aquinas’s cosmological argument treated the relationship between cause and effect logically—the kalām version stresses on the temporal ordering of the causal sequence. The Kalam argument states that anything with a finite past – (like the universe)-has a cause for its existence. This cause has to transcend both space and time – (since neither time or space existed before the universe.) Since no scientific explanation of the origin or cause of the universe has been made, the Kalam argument deduces that the first cause must be a personal agent. This argument has been taken to the next level by William Lane Craig who formulates the Kalām cosmological argument as: Everything that begins to exist (like the universe) has a cause of its existence and this cause is God. But could this cause not have very well have been the Big Bang Theory that states that the universe began due to a vacuum and concentration of pure energy? From this conclusion Craig argues that --since there is no scientific explanation or causal account about how the universe originated, there must be a personal cause or agent. (Craig & Smith 1993, chap. 1) Since the Big Bang Theory does not explain how this concentrated energy came into being -it is not a ‘first cause’ in the strictest sense of the term. Unlike Aquinas who finds the uncaused necessary being to be God, modern thinkers think that the ‘first cause’ was nothing more then specific conditions between matter or energy. Craigs a posteriori argument incorporates recent cosmology and the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins. In doing so Craig uses the infinite in more modern ways then Aristotle and Aquinas did. 3. The principle of sufficient reason: - This third kind of cosmological argument according to Craig (1980) is from Enlightenment thinkers like Georg Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel. This type of cosmological argument based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason was propounded in the 16th century by Leibniz as a strengthened principle of sufficient reason. He stated that “no fact can be real or existing and no statement true without a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise” (Monadology,). Using the principle of sufficient reason Leibniz argues that the reason for the “series of things comprehended in the universe of creatures” must be located outside the series of contingencies in a necessary (self created) being that we call God. This principle of sufficient reason is also used by Samuel Clark in his cosmological argument according to Rowe (1975, chap. 2). The Principle of Sufficient Reason according to Swinburne reiterates the need for a complete explanation that includes a causal account of the ‘sufficient conditions’ and the reason the cause resulted in that particular effect. Paul Davies is of the view that the Cosmic system and not God, can explain the ‘Big Bang’. The cause of the Big Bang was an increase in energy due to the ‘law of conservation of energy.’ All matter including the universe emerged from this explosion of energy. (But this does not explain how the energy came to be there in the first place.) Criticism of the cosmological argument:-This argument was seriously attacked in the eighteenth century, by both David Hume and Immanuel Kant. For Hume the view of causation itself –(that is presupposed in the argument)- was suspect, since everything in the physical world need not have a cause. Kant points out that the cosmological argument’s ‘necessary being’ is based on the ontological argument, which is also suspect. Critics of the Cosmological argument point out that there are severe misgivings behind both—the ‘Causal Principle’ as well as the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’. Hume argued that we can think of effects without thinking of their being caused, so it is wrong to think of the Causal Principle as true ‘a priori’. More recently, in the twentieth century skepticism around the cosmological argument has prevailed, and contemporary philosophers have arguments to offer on both sides of the fence. Both Alvin Plantinga (1967, chap. 1) and Richard Gale (in Kantian fashion)-state that the cosmological argument reaches an impossible conclusion (God). Only William Lane Craig defends the kalām argument and Richard Swinburne offers an inductive argument for Gods existence after rejecting deductive cosmological arguments. Swinburne states that, “There is quite a chance that if there is a God he will make something of the finitude and complexity of a universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe…can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God”. The cosmological argument according to Haldane and Smart is that what is contingent exists due to a necessary being. But what if the parts of the whole that Hume talks of are themselves necessary beings? (The immanent idea of a God within everyone) This too can explain the whole. (According to the Hindu tradition, God is within every one and everything and everything in essence has the potential to be God.) According to Kant the ‘necessary being’ can be interpreted in different ways. Kant, sees a "necessary being" as having a logically necessary undeniable existence. But this is not the sense in which "necessary being" is understood in the cosmological argument. According to Mackie God could have not-existed as a logically contingent being; yet Gods existence is such that a cause is required, for Gods own existence as well. Mackie states that if God exists, he must do so in all possible worlds, or not exist at all. According to Mackie God is also a logically contingent being. So why, he asks, does God exist? Thinkers who are for the cosmological argument uphold the ‘Causal Principle’ or the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason,’ while still limiting their realm to contingent beings. Critics against the argument on the other hand, try to apply the ‘Causal Principle’ or the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason,’ to the necessary being. The Causal Principle of cosmology has also been criticized on the quantum level, where the connection between cause and effect, is less clear. Since electrons can stop existing at one point and come back into existence somewhere else, in such a way as to make it impossible to determine why it emerges at point ‘X’ rather then point ‘Y’? Smith states that, “Quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is limited in its application, if applicable at all, and consequently that a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang cannot go through” (Smith, in Craig and Smith, 1993, 121-3, 182) In ‘The Existence of God’ Adler presents a cosmological argument in which he reaches the conclusion that God exists because a necessary being is required for preserving the cosmos. So to sum up, the universe is everlasting simply because God sustains it. Can mankind too like Adler first reject the idea of a creating God, only to find proof of a sustaining one? In any event an argument for the existence of a transcendent God has to be a very good one, since God is a supernatural being who is so far above the earth that he cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelt –in other words he is unknowable by the five senses—he could therefore only be believed in with blind faith. To sum up, as to whether or not the cosmological argument proves the existence of God, the answer is yes, if everyone is perceived as an immanent necessary being who has God living within them. Works Cited 1. Aquinas, Thomas, 13th c., Summa Theologica I, q. 2 www.newadvent.org/summa/100203htm 2. Craig, William Lane, 1979, ‘The Kalām Cosmological Argument’, London: The Macmillan Press. 3. Foutz, David, Scott ‘An Examination of Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments as found in ‘The Five Ways’, Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy,www.quodibet.net/aqu5ways 4. Kenny, Anthony, 1969, The Five Ways, New York: Schocken Books 5. McCabe, Herbert OP (1985) ‘The Involvement of God’, New Blackfriars 66 (785), p. 464-476 6. Russell, Bertrand, and Frederick Copleston, 1964, “Debate on the Existence of God,” in John Hick, ed., The Existence of God, New York: Macmillan. 7. Thatcher, Oliver J., ed., ‘The Library of Original Sources’ (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. V: The Early Medieval World, pp. 359-363. 8. "Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p232 ff. 9. Cosmological Argument, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, www.en.wikipedia.org/wkil/cosmological_argument, April 2008 10.‘Cosmological Argument’, Jul 13, 2004; revised substantially- Thu Sep 16, 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Read More