The essence of the argument is fairly simple and might easily be summed up as this:
- Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Answer: God.
I must admit it has a certain elegance to it when put in this form; it has certainly been popular. The first (known) versions of the argument seem to have been formulated in antiquity Greece, by Plato and Aristotle. Plato, in what I'd almost characterise as a very modern scientific way of looking at it, argues that all motion in the universe has had to come from somewhere, from a “self-originated motion”. Aristotle also defended the existence of a ‘first-mover’, which he called the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον (better known as primus motor in Latin), but he defined it as an essence of pure thought, somehow organising cosmos by “being itself the object of ‘aspiration and desire’” (source: Wikipedia). Now, it can be contradictory for them to speak of a first cause, as they were both conform with antiquity thought that the Cosmos always had existed and always would. They both simply acknowledged that something had to be behind it.
There are many versions of the argument. Just to name a few adherents of “modern” times, both Gottfried Leibniz and Thomas Aquinas have had their own versions, the latter one the most influential. In Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque Viae (lat. = Five ways), a book depicting five arguments meant to “prove” God’s existence, his cosmological argument is the first of the five. No matter the version, they can all (globally) be placed in one of the three following categories: Argument from contingency, in fieri and in esse.
The Argument from Contingency: First of all, contingency means possibility - something that might or might not happen. In this context, it refers to the fact that something might or might not exist. I like to explain this with a bowl of apples. Either there is apples in it, or, in the case where the bowl would be empty, there is not. Now, for it to be apples in it there must be some kind of an external force that can put them there, let us call him Bob. But even Bob must have found them somewhere – the apples must have grown on an apple tree, which again must have an origin. Now we could keep going on like this for a while, talking about apple seeds, earth, the sun and possibly even evolution, but all of these are contingent in essence; they could not have existed at all. A modern scientist will prolong this chain of causality all the way to the Big Bang, but will not scientifically be able to go any further. But as nothing can be created out of nothing, the Universe itself must also have a cause, and to avoid a causational chain of infinite regression, the chain must end somewhere with something, or someone for that matter, that is necessarily (≠contingently) existent – something that is and could not not have been. According to Thomas Aquinas, we have found our God.
In Fieri: Basically “in becoming”. This version of the Cosmological Argument states only that a first cause, a creator, is necessary for the universe to have been created. Let us say that Bob makes a boat. Afterwards, Bob may die. Or just go on to do something else. The boat will continue to exist regardless of further intervention from Bob (occasional maintenance might be in order, but alas! it is not a perfect metaphor).
Even if we were to acknowledge a certain validity to the Cosmological Argument - that it proves, or at least suggests, the existence of a divine architect, that does not imply that he is still around, or if he is, that he cares about mortal affairs (again, I would evoke the Dervish from
Candide, as referenced in
On Faith - Part I). Though Bob might have created the boat, he might as well have gotten tired of it afterwards, preferring to work on other projects.
In Esse: Means “in existence”. While
in fiery is not dependent on its maker for its continued existence, this version is like the water in a bucket, which is only able to keep its form as long as the bucket is in place. It closely resembles the God-model of
Spinoza, who saw God as a part of nature, of everything around us – inseparable from the rest of the universe. Not much more to it than that.
Though quite persuasive, the Cosmological argument, along with all divine arguments, presents several weaknesses:
First of all, the argument, if valid, suggests at best no more than a creator cause. It can in no way be used to prove the existence of any particular god and the capabilities usually associated with it, such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Neither does it support the notion of a “cosmic intelligence” or even conscious being. You could of course take the rhetorical route and just call the cosmic entity which started it all, or whatever a first cause would be, god, but it would be nothing more than a pernicious way of bending
the argument, easy to use to defend one’s own notion of god.
Philosophers have pointed out logical fallacies within the argument, amongst whom
David Hume seems to have been particularly productive. Hume points out that extrapolating a
primus motor solves nothing, as it creates an even bigger question than that which it answers: who or what caused the First Cause? His problem of induction would also be applicable in this case: causal relation is never
a priori true. It can only be deduced
a posterior, in hindsight. To use science as an example, science can never be
proven objectively, only
disproven. Scientific theories are models which we use to explain and predict the world around us, and they are only valid until we discover a flaw and are able to correct, replace or refute them. I can personally postulate that Hollywood does not exist, as I have never seen it for myself. Of course, I have a slight suspicion that if I ever go there, then I might be able to find those indiscrete letters and the city district that comes with it, but until I so do, I can never know for sure. It is the same with causality: We have never observed a situation where it has not seemed to be the case, supposed miracles besides, and we can only assume that it is an eternal, universal law. And as to how it works
outside of or
before the beginning of the universe, who knows? We have never had the opportunity to see for ourselves.
Another problem is that it supposes that there has to be a first cause. By summing up the arguments of David Hume and
Paul Edwards,
William L. Rowe formulates what he calls the Hume-Edwards principle:
“If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is hereby explained.”
Rowe himself did not agree with it, but is rather persuasive, as we certainly have no less reason to postulate an infinite causal chain than to postulate a supposed first cause. Theologians might argue (and indeed they have) that God is somehow self-caused or that it has always have been in existence. But even if we allow self-causation (or eternal existence), why can it not be the Universe itself that is self-caused (or always in existence)? Even if the Cosmological Argument were valid, God would be independent of it, and rather redundant. And this is what shook the foundation of my Deism. We have in the end no rational reason to believe that there is a creator god, a Grand Architect. The God of the Philosophers have been refuted by the very same rationality that spawned it.
"They say that God is everywhere, and yet we always think of Him as somewhat of a recluse."
Emily Dickinson
Ps. Cartoon was taken from Chaospet.
If the author ever reads this: hope you do not mind!(Awesome cartoon, by the way)
Note: This article first appeared in Stud.Jur nr. 5, 2011.
