philosophy
mariajas
6.1-CosmologicalArgument.rtfChapter 6, The Problem of Evil and the Existence of God
• The Cosmological Argument
---In general, any argument which tries to prove God exists from one fact about the universe (the “cosmos”) is a cosmological argument. The first four of Aquinas’ “ways” are all different versions of a cosmological argument. The traditional cosmological argument can best be seen in Aquinas’ 2nd “way:”
Traditional Cosmological Argument
1. Every sensible object has a cause.
2. The cause of a sensible object is either (a) itself, or (b) some other sensible thing prior to itself.
3. If a sensible thing caused itself, it would have to exist before it exists.
4. But 3 is impossible, so every sensible thing must have been caused by a prior sensible thing.
5. Thus, there must be a chain of causes which leads up to the present day sensible objects.
6. If any member of that chain were removed, the remainder of the chain would not exist.
7. Further, if a first cause of this chain were taken away, the remainder of the chain would not come to exist.
8. But sensible things do exist.
9. Thus a first cause must exist.
10. This first cause is what we call “God.”
• Problems with the traditional argument::
1. Even if 1-9 are valid and true, this would not give a reason for thinking that the first cause is anything like the “God” of any religion. This could just as easily be a demon (and that would actually explain much more, i.e., the presence of evil).
2. According to the argument, all sensible things must have a cause prior to themselves. Why is this not true of the first cause? (that is, why not have an infinite chain?)
3. Premise one is simply false (given today’s particle physics, which says that subatomic particles come in and go out of existence at random. This suggests that it may be possible that the “Big Bang” itself needed no “cause”)
Amended Version of the Cosmological Argument (Samuel Clarke)
(not in text)
1. Sensible things exists now.
2. Sensible things could not exist now unless there is something which has always existed.
(Either a “first cause” or an infinite chain of causes)
3. Therefore, something has always existed.
4. There are two possibilities:
a. an eternal and necessary being has always existed, or
b. the chain of causes has always existed, going back infinitely.
5. For everything that exists there must be an explanation, a reason why it exists.
(This is the Principle of Sufficient Reason)
6. If the chain of causes is all that exists, it cannot be explained from outside itself, as nothing outside it exists.
7. If the chain of causes is all that exists, it cannot be explained from inside itself, as no part can explain the whole.
8. Thus, if the chain of causes is all that exists, there can be no explanation of it.
9. But 8 is impossible (by 5)
10. Thus, 4b is impossible.
11. Therefore, 4a is true. There is a necessary being.
12. This necessary being is God.
• Problems with the amended argument: (#1 & 3 from above)
1. Again, we cannot say (even if the argument is valid and true) that the necessary being is the God of religion (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.).
3. Again, premise 5 appears to be false given today’s best science. Some things do come into existence without a reason or a cause.
The Kalam (Big Bang) Version of the Cosmological Argument
1. A “Big Bang” caused the beginning of the universe.
2. There must be a reason (cause) for the Big Bang.
3. This cause was God.
• Problems with the Big Bang argument:
1. Even if 1 and 2 are acceptable, we cannot say this cause is the God of religion.
2. Our best science shows us that some things do happen without a reason (cause). Thus, 2 is false.
3. In order for something to have a cause, there must be a time before that thing happened. However, there was no time before the Big Bang. Thus, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause for the Big Bang.
