Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God - Research Paper Example

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God Abstract Several approaches have been adopted over a fairly long period in the history of religion to logically establish the existence of God. These have also been accompanied by widespread debate and criticism of the various arguments advanced. The approaches that have been adopted in this respect can be classified into ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. Of these, the cosmological arguments are based on empirical evidence, and proceed from the fact of the world as it exists, in order to arrive at a logical conclusion that there must be a cause behind this world. This paper presents a brief, factual, and unbiased overview of these arguments, without going into the merits of the arguments, or the criticisms against them. Introduction The quest for a proof of the existence of God is one that has a long history. Among the approaches to producing a proof for the existence of God, three groups of arguments are considered as classical arguments. These are: The ontological arguments: The cosmological arguments The teleological arguments. The cosmological arguments, which are further examined in this paper, are based on an analysis of actual experiences, rather than on concepts. This group of arguments derives its name from the Greek root Cosmos, which means ‘universe’ or ‘world’, and tries to establish the unreasonableness of, and the absence of logical sustainability in, the denial of God, based on the evidence that is available. (Palmer, 2001, p. 49) “Cosmological” means “based on the fact of the cosmos”, and this group of arguments is based on cosmology, a branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as an orderly system. . The word “argument” refers to a formulation of the premises and the conclusions derived from them (Jeffcoat, n.d.) Thus cosmological arguments are, in essence, a set of premises, and conclusions drawn from them, that are based on the fact of the existence of the cosmos as an orderly system. Cosmological arguments – An Overview Cosmological arguments start from known facts such as the existence of the world or the universe, or from the features of that world or universe. (Mackie, 1982, p. 81) These arguments try to establish God as the single uncaused cause of all things, and take the position that God is as real as the world itself. (Hocking, 1912, p. 305) As Lewis (1959, p. 41) puts it, these arguments are based on "the conviction of the self-subsistent supra-rational source of the world as we find it" Kant describes cosmological arguments as starting from “experience which is purely indeterminate” or “experience of existence in general.” It can be said that these arguments are based on the fact of the existence of finite objects other than God Himself. (Swinburne, 1991, p. 116) Cosmological arguments have an ancient history that go back to the time of the Greeks. These arguments rely on one or more empirical premises that are based on the universe, or cosmos, in general. (Everitt, 2003, p. 59) The cosmological group of arguments is comprised of a number of individual arguments. Types of Cosmological Arguments There are broadly three types of cosmological arguments that seek to establish the existence of God logically. These are: The First Cause argument: This is based on the impossibility of an ordered sequence of causes and effects that could be projected backwards infinitely. Since such a projection is impossible, this argument concludes that this sequence requires a first cause. The impossibility of infinite temporal regress: This is based on the argument that an actual extension of the past into temporal infinity is impossible, and hence there must be a beginning. This implies that this beginning must be marked by creation, which is the work of God. Principle of sufficient reason: This argument is based on the premise that everything in the universe exists contingently. For this to be possible there must be something that exists necessarily (without a cause), as otherwise it would lead to an infinite series of causes. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008) The Rationale of Cosmological Arguments If we consider various states of the universe starting from its present state, we may trace each state to a previous state and a natural law ‘L’ that is associated with it. Thus if S0 represents the state of the universe as it is today, going backwards, we can say that S0 is the result of S1 plus L. Similarly, S1, S2, S3, and so on, are each dependent on an earlier cause. This series may be infinite or finite. In either case, the existence of God can be inferred. There are two possible ways in which this can be done. The first of these is of God as the Maker of the Laws (L) that provide the cause for the known state of things. The second is as the one beginning the series (of S1, S2, S3 and so on). (Swinburne, 1991, p. 120) These positions correspond to the above set of arguments. The First Cause Argument This argument is based on tracing the cause for each contingency, and on the impossibility of such a chain of causes extending to infinity. If we consider the universe as it is today, this state has been caused by the state of the universe at a slightly earlier point in time. In turn, the earlier state of the universe was the result of a state that existed at a point prior to the earlier state that caused the present state. In other words, the state of the universe at time t is caused by the state of the universe at time t-1. The state of the universe at time t-1 is caused by the state of the universe at time t-2. The state of the universe at time t-2 is caused by the state of the universe at time t-3. Thus at every step, there is a cause that can be traced to an earlier step. According to the First Cause argument, this regress cannot go on indefinitely (or infinitely). Hence there must a first cause, which starts the whole series, and that first cause is God. The Impossibility of Infinite temporal Regress This approach tries to establish the existence of God through the argument that a past period extending to infinity is impossible. Once we accept that an infinite past is an impossibility, we must accept that there was a beginning, which means that there must have been creation. This beginning and creation are explained through the existence of God. One of the arguments advanced to establish the position that an infinite past is not possible is that if such an infinite past had existed, an infinite stretch of time would have to be traversed to reach the present, which, according to the proponents of this approach, is impossible. Some of them even question the concept of infinity itself. This is examined in the following section. Concept of infinity In order to understand the above arguments, we first need an understanding of the concept of infinity. To say that infinity is something without an end will not serve the purpose. For example, the surface of a sphere does not have an end, or a clear boundary, but it is not infinite. Hence we need a more precise definition of infinity. To understand infinity, we need to understand a few concepts of set theory. Two sets A and B are equivalent if the members of set A can be paired with the members of set B. Thus, to put it simply, the sets would be equivalent if they had the same number of members. Secondly, a set (A) is a subset of another set (B), if every member of A is a member of B. Thirdly, a set A is a proper subset of another set B, if every member of A is a member of B, but every member of B is not necessarily a member of A. To understand the infinity of time or space using the above concepts, we can pair of the natural numbers with the units of time (or space). Supposing the past is infinite, then we can pair every second (or hour or year) of the past with the natural numbers, starting with 0, which would represent the present. The immediately preceding period would be 1, the one prior to that would be 2, and so on. Just as one can add a number to this series no matter how high a number has been reached, anything infinite would permit an additional element no matter how far we have already gone. Impossibility of infinite past times The impossibility of infinite temporal regress means that the past cannot be infinite, that is, it cannot be stretched indefinitely as for example natural numbers can. In view of this, the argument concludes that there must be a beginning and creation, which according to this argument is ascribable to God. This argument is based on the premise that an infinity of past times is a logical impossibility. The above argument against the idea of infinite past is based on the assumption that there has to be a beginning. In reality, the concept of infinity, as applied to the past, would imply that there was no beginning at all, rather than that there was a beginning, howsoever remote, that had to be traversed in order to reach the present. Critics of the theory find this argument flawed in view of what they consider an untenable assumption. In spite of the criticism, several thinkers seem to share this skepticism about an actual infinity. Supposing that such an infinity is in fact impossible, and the position of these thinkers that an actual infinity is impossible is accepted, what does it show about the existence of God? In the words of al Ghazali, "'[We] know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator'" (as cited in Mackie, 1982, p. 94) The crucial assumption in this case is that whatever has a beginning must also have a creator who created it. Whatever the merits of such an assumption, the argument in this case rests on these two premises, namely, Infinite regress into the past in terms of time is an impossibility. This means that everything must have a beginning. Because infinite regress into the past is impossible, there must be a creator who brought everything into existence at the beginning of time. Contingency and the Principle of Sufficient Reason This theory is based on the premise that a reason has to exist for everything in this world. The regularities of nature can be explained by the existence of laws. However, in turn, this raises the question as to why these laws exist, and what caused them. Laws explain the way things behave in nature. If things are constrained to behave in particular ways, there must be a reason why they are thus constrained. Such a reason will have to lie outside the known region, since all the forces within the known region operate contingently. (Mackie, 1982, p. 81) This can also be perceived in a slightly different manner, as follows. 1. The universe and everything in it exist only contingently, that is, there is a cause that brought them into existence. 2. For these things to exist contingently, there has to be something that exists necessarily 3. Hence there exists something necessarily. (Everitt, 2003, p. 73) Although there are several variations to this principle, almost all of them follow the same line of thought, which can be illustrated by the arguments put forth by Leibniz. According to Leibniz, there must be a cause for everything. Everything in the world that we observe is contingent and causally determined by some other thing or things. If these causal entities had not been in existence the way they did, the results would not have been there. In turn this would be true of the causal factors also, as they would have a cause for their existence. This series of causes, and the causes of those causes, can be stretched back indefinitely in time or in terms of being causes. However much this is stretched, the entire chain would still be contingent and would need a cause. When extended to the world as a whole, this means that the world itself is contingent, and must have a reason behind its existence. In other words, there must be a reason for the world as a whole, and this reason lies outside the world. This reason is a necessary being that is free from the disease of contingency. (Mackie, 1982, p. 81) According to the theory of sufficient reason, this necessary being is none other than God. References 1. Hocking, W. E. (1912). The Meaning of God in Human Experience: A Philosophic Study of Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2. Jeffcoat, W.D. (n.d.) The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Apologetics Press, Inc. Retrieved on February 27, 2010 from https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf 3. Lewis, H. D. (1959). Our Experience of God. London: Allen & Unwin. 4. Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 5. Palmer, M. (2001). The Question of God: An Introduction and Sourcebook. London: Routledge. 6. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sep 11, 2008). Cosmological Argument. Retrieved on February 27, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ 7. Swinburne, R. (1991). The Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Pressto Read More