The
cosmological argument is an
argument for the existence of a
First Cause (or instead, an
Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by
extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an
"unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as
God. It is traditionally known as an
argument from universal causation, an
argument from first cause, the
causal
argument or the
argument from existence.
Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the
argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the
arguments from
causation,
in esse and
in
fieri, and the argument from
contingency.
The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the
Universe to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It has been
used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries,
from the
ancient Greek Plato and
Aristotle to the
medieval
St. Thomas Aquinas and
the 20th century
Frederick
Copleston.
History
Plato (c. 427–347 BCE) and
Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) both posited first
cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato
posited a basic argument in
The
Laws (Book X), in which he argued that motion in the world
and the
Cosmos was "imparted motion" that
required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion
and to maintain that motion. Plato also posited a "
demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the
creator of the Cosmos in his work
Timaeus. For Plato, the demiurge
lacked the
supernatural ability to
create
ex nihilo (out of
nothing). It was only able to organize the
ananke
(necessity), the only other co-existent element or presence in
Plato's
cosmogony.
Aristotle also put forth the idea of a First Cause, often referred
to as the "
Prime Mover" or "
Unmoved Mover" ( or
primus motor) in
his work
Metaphysics. For Aristotle too,
as for Plato, the underlying essence of the
Universe always was in existence and always would
be (which in turn follows
Parmenides'
famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle
posited an underlying
ousia (essence
or substance) of which the Universe was composed, and it was this
ousia that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion.
The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but was instead
a being who constantly thought about thinking itself, and who
organized the Cosmos by being itself the object of "aspiration or
desire". The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on
thinking", an
eternal process of pure
thought.
Later on the Platonist, Plotinus taught that the One transcendent
absolute caused the universe to exist simply a consequence of its
existence, creatio ex deo. His disciple Proclus stated 'The One is
God'.
Centuries later, the
Islamic philosopher Avicenna (c.
980–1037 CE) initiated a full-fledged inquiry into the question of
being, in which he distinguished between
essence (
Mahiat) and
existence (
Wujud). He argued that the
fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by
the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by
themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of
the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things.
Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an
agent cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or
adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with
its effect and be an existing thing.
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 CE),
probably the best-known
theologian of
Medieval Europe, adapted the argument he
found in his reading of Aristotle and Avicenna to form one of the
most influential versions of the cosmological argument. His
conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have
been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he
asserted was
God.
Many other philosophers and theologians have posited cosmological
arguments both before and since Aquinas. The versions sampled in
the following sections are representative of the most common
derivations of the argument.
The argument
The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
- Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
- Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
- A causal chain cannot be of infinite
length.
- Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect)
must exist.
According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires
an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause,
generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.
In light of the
Big Bang theory, a
stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the
Kalam cosmological
argument, the following form of which was set forth by
William Lane CraigCraig, William L. "The
Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe."
Truth
Journal. Leadership University. 22 Jun. 2008
/www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html>.):
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
The argument from contingency
In the
scholastic era,
Aquinas formulated the "argument from
contingency", following
Aristotle in claiming that there must be something
to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under
different circumstances, conceivably
not exist
(contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another
contingent thing, but something that exists by
necessity
(something that
must exist in order for anything else to
exist). In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it
still owes its existence to an
Uncaused
Cause, although Aquinas used the words "...and this we
understand to be God."
Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause
argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has
no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from
universal
causation. Aquinas observed
that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences.
Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be
some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus,
according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing
existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring
anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are
insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings:
there must exist a
necessary
being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the
existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The German philosopher
Gottfried
Leibniz made a similar argument with his
principle of sufficient
reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or
existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being
a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we
cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the
cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather
than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance
which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its
existence within itself."
"In esse" and "in fieri"
The difference between the arguments from causation
in fieri and
in
esse is a fairly important one.
In fieri is
generally translated as "becoming", while
in esse is
generally translated as "in existence".
In fieri, the
process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is
built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It
may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of
the first cause argument.)
In esse (in existence) is more akin to the light from a
candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce,
SJ, explained that "...where the light of
the candle is dependent on the candle's 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 than
is the example of the house's maintenance above, because here the
First Cause is insufficient without the candle's or vessel's
continued existence.
Thus,
Aristotle's argument is
in
esse, while
Aquinas' argument is both
in fieri and
in esse (plus an additional argument
from
contingency). This
distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a
deistic view (Aristotle) and a
theistic view (Aquinas).
Leibniz, who wrote more than two centuries
before the
Big Bang was taken for granted,
was arguing
in esse. As a general trend, the modern slants
on the cosmological argument, including the
Kalam argument, tend to lean
very strongly towards an
in fieri argument.
Objections and counterarguments
What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question
of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a
cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having
a cause, while opponents argue that this is
special pleading or otherwise
untrue.Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument",
The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
/plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it
raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.Cline,
Austin. "Cosmological Argument: Does the Universe Require a First
Cause?"
About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism. 20 Jun. 2008
/atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm>.
Secondly, the premise of
causality has
been arrived at via
a
posteriori (
inductive)
reasoning, which is dependent on experience.
David Hume highlighted this
problem of induction and showed that
causal relations were not true
a
priori (
deductively).
However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more
valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general
conclusion being that neither is prominent. Even though causality
applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the
universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions
from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. The rules of
causality only make sense in the context of
time, which obviously did not exist before the
creation of the universe, thus it could be considered nonsensical
to speak of pre-universal "causes", specifically a First Cause,
when discussing the origins of the universe.
Additionally, it is argued that
Occam's
razor can be used against the argument, showing how the
argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of
causality.Kaye, Sharon. "William of Ockham."
The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 20 Jun. 2008
/www.iep.utm.edu/o/ockham.htm>.
Identity of a First Cause
An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is
that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause,
it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does
not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic
attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a
theistic God, such as
immanence or
omnibenevolence. Rather, it simply argues
that a First Cause (e.g. the
Big Bang, God,
or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist. There exist theistic
arguments that attempt to extract such attributes.Craig, William L.
"Initial Arguments: A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the
Existence of God."
Leadership University. 20 Jun. 2008
/www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html>.
Furthermore, if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, God's
continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is
the foundation for beliefs such as
deism that
accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any
further interaction with it.
The First Cause Needs Not Be Intelligent
Assuming a first cause is necessary, an objection against the
necessity of God is that there is no necessity of a first cause to
have intent, or even be intelligent. When we look at our universe,
it appears that things have gone from a state of less complexity to
a state of more complexity. Even astrophysicists say that
originally there were only light elements. If you follow this to
its logical conclusion, it could be possible for the first cause to
be very non-complex and totally unintelligent.
Scientific positions
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific
foundation of
Aristotelian
physics. Some physicists feel that the development of the
laws of thermodynamics in the
19th century and
quantum physics in
the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of
the cosmological argument.Modern physics has many examples of
bodies being moved without any known moving body, apparently
undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every
object in motion must be moved by another object in motion.
Physicist
Michio Kaku directly addresses
the cosmological argument in his book
Hyperspace, saying that it is easily
dismissed by the
law of
conservation of energy and the laws governing
molecular physics. He gives an example—
"
gas molecules may
bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything
or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these molecules
could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need
for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the
nature of time. The
Big Bang theory
states that it is the point in which all
dimensions came into existence, the start of both
space and
time. Then, the
question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the
concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a
situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effect
so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply (see
counter argument above under What Caused the First Cause?). This
has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David
N. Schramm, and Beatrice M.
Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred
before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole
. However, some cosmologists and physicists
do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big
Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of
branes to give a cause for the Big Bang.Britt, Robert
R. "'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory."
Space.com. 18 Apr. 2001. 21 Jun. 2008
/www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html>.
See also
References
- "Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p232
ff.
- "Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p233
ff.
- Scott David Foutz, An
Examination of Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Arguments as found in
the Five Ways, Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian
Theology and Philosophy
- Summa Theologiae, I : 2,3
- Aquinas was an ardent student of Aristotle's works, a
significant number of which had only recently been translated into
Latin by Ibn-Rushd,
also known as Averroes.
- Summa Theologiae, I : 2,3
- Monadologie (1714). Nicholas Rescher, trans., 1991.
The Monadology: An Edition for Students. Uni. of Pittsburg
Press. Jonathan Bennett's translation. Latta's translation.
- Joyce, George Hayward (1922) Principles of Natural
Theology. NY: Longmans Green.
- http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
- "deism." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Answers.com 20 Jun. 2008.
http://www.answers.com/topic/deism
- M.Orito,T.Kajino,R.N.Boyd and G.J.Mathews(1996)" Geometrical Effects of Baryon Density Inhomogeneities on
Primordial Nucleosynthesis"
- * Michio Kaku. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through
Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-19-286189-1
- (J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and
Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific
American [March 1976], p. 65)
External links
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
