Cosmological Argument (Part 1)

Introduction

It is possible to prove God’s existence by understanding the concept of being as being and building on first principles of knowledge. “From the principle of causality or finality we can conclude to the existence of God; from principles of negation and eminence, we can conclude to the simplicity and eternity of God; from the principle of causality and analogy, we can conclude to the fact that God has intellect, a will, and so forth.”^{^[1]} Natural theology can give certain and necessary knowledge of God because it is built on certain undeniable first principle of knowledge. There are several philosophical arguments that have been around for many centuries regarding the existence of God. Of these, the cosmological argument is considered by many proponents of theism as the most important. . The cosmological argument is often divided into two separate presentations—the horizontal or kalam cosmological argument and the vertical cosmological argument. The difference is made in whether one is arguing how the universe came to be (kalam), or how the universe continues to be (verticle). Though several forms of the argument do overlap, for the purpose of this paper, the kalam cosmological argument will be presented in a form similar to that of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument from efficient causality.

A simple version of the kalam cosmological argument can be stated as such:1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.2. The universe has a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.Using this syllogism as a basis for development, one will find that an eternal, necessary, powerful being was the efficient cause for the beginning of the universe.

Cause and EffectCause is “anything responsible for change, motion, or action.”^{^[2]} The change, motion, or action that follows is the effect. The universe exists. What caused it to exist? If it ever did not exist, then something must have caused it to exist. This paper will look at the change that took place in cosmological history when the universe began to exist. The change was brought about by something prior to and greater than the universe itself, namely God.This principle is sometimes referred to as the law of cause and effect. Three aspects of this principle will be described.

DefinitionThis principle is self-evident to most people. Simply stated--for every effect, there is a cause. Those who reject this rendering of the principle do so because this statement does not define the effect adequately. Effects are dependent on their causes for their actuality. Every contingent (dependent, finite) being has a cause. If this is true, then it follows that if there is a being that is not contingent or finite, then it would not need a cause.Sometimes a straw man is erected by non-theists on the subject of cause and effect. The renowned atheist Bertrand Russell wrote concerning the Cosmological argument, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”^{^[3]}A more recent writer affirms this statement by saying that since theists assert that everything has a cause, then God must have a cause.^{^[4]} Neither of these statements accurately addresses the important distinction of a contingent being. Theists do not argue that everything has a cause. Only finite, contingent beings have a cause. God, if he exists, is neither contingent nor finite.

Greater than Effect

The second aspect of the principle of cause and effect is that every effect is less than the cause. Whatever is the essence of the effect, the essence of the cause must be the same or more. If a five pound weight is placed on one side of a properly set balance, only another five pound weight will cause the balance to rest evenly. One might suggest that this is not always true. For example, it takes only a spark to cause a forest fire. However, the spark is not the only cause of the fire. It begins the process, but without sufficient fuel the fire will be short lived. In this case there are actually multiple causes to the forest fire. The sum of these causes is greater than the effect.^{^[5]}

If the universe has a beginning, then its cause must be greater than it. Virtually all scientists today agree with Einstein’s idea of the space-time continuum. The two are inseparable. Time and space began simultaneously if they had a beginning at all. The cause of time must be transcendent of time and prior to time logically. (One cannot say that eternity is before time in the chronological sense of “before.”) Only a cause of eternal or higher dimensional existence could have caused the space-time continuum.

Scientists believe that all matter can be reduced to energy. Stephen Hawking writes that according to quantum theory, matter came from “energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs.”^{^[6]} If energy had a beginning, then its cause must have creative powers greater than the sum of all the energy of the universe. This leads to the conclusion of an eternal, all-powerful being that caused the universe to exist, assuming the universe had a beginning.

Prior to EffectThe cause must be prior to the effect. This can be true either temporally or logically. The most common idea is that of time. In this world, there is usually a chronological priority of the cause before the effect. If one could send something like a virus, back in time, he could cause great destruction that otherwise would not have occurred. This would only be possible if there was a way to go beyond the current limitation of time. In this case, it would be correct to say that the cause was before the effect only in the logical sense, not the chronological sense.

However, if God dwells in an eternal abode beyond time, and time had a beginning, then God as a cause is logically prior to the effect(s). This would fit under the category of which Aristotle wrote about: “One thing is said to be ‘prior’ to another when the sequence of their being cannot be reversed. In this sense ‘one’ is ‘prior’ to ‘two’. For if ‘two’ exists, it follows directly that ‘one’ must exist, but if ‘one’ exists, it does not follow necessarily that ‘two’ exists: thus the sequence subsisting cannot be reversed.”^{^[7]} In this description the one on which the other depends is prior to it.

Similar to Effect The effect must be similar to the cause. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of analogy. The basis of analogy in reference to a First Cause is the Creator-creature relationship. God is pure act and He made something that is actual. Act communicates act. There must be a similarity between creation and Creator. It is impossible for God to create non-being, since non-being is by definition non-existent. Nor could He have created a being just like Himself (infinite). He had to create being similar to Himself.

Though one cannot examine or view a transcendent God directly, one can know certain things about God by viewing His Creation. Some say that one cannot argue from effect to cause, but it is possible. In fact, much of human knowledge is attained in this manner, especially in the area of the sciences. Physicians try to diagnose an ailment by examining symptoms. Astronomers discuss the possibility of the Big Bang by studying its alleged effects. Similarly, Theists argue from the cosmos (effect) to the Creator (cause). There are some things that will never be known unless one argues from effect to cause.

Efficient Cause One of the ways that God can be proved to exist is from the idea of efficient cause. Efficient cause is “the force or agent producing the effect . . . brought about in the order of execution.”^{^[8]} Here the cause must be prior to the effect. It must also have qualities that are capable of producing the type of universe that exists.

It is demonstrable by looking at the present state of affairs and finding no exception to this idea. Nothing “happens” without a cause. This is true of everything that can be observed in the world.

There are only four options regarding the efficient cause of the existence of the universe. Either the universe is self-caused, uncaused, part of an infinite series of causes, or was caused to exist by another, which could be called the First Cause. The first three options do not require the existence of God.

Option One: Self-Caused The first option is that the universe caused itself to exist. Yet this is logically impossible. According to Thomas Aquinas, “There is no case known (nor indeed is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.”^{^[9]} If the universe had a beginning, and it caused itself into existence, then there is an example in cosmological history in which nothing caused something. John Locke wrote, “This being of all absurdities the greatest, to imagine that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all beings, should ever produce any real existence.”^{^[10]} To believe that nothing could cause something to exist is unreasonable and illogical.

Option Two: Uncaused The second option is that the universe is uncaused. Even without a very close look at this option it seems unlikely. Everything that one can observe within the universe is in submission to the principle of causation. Would not the whole have the same attributes as the parts? Geisler writes, “Either the whole universe is equal to all its parts or else it is more than all its parts. If it is equal to them, then it too needs a cause.”^{^[11]} If this is true, then it eliminates the possibility that the universe is a self-caused entity made up of smaller interdependent entities. One can imagine a system of interdependent entities, without a sustaining cause. However, a simple illustration demonstrates the difficulty of such a proposition. A single playing card taken from a deck of cards cannot stand alone at a forty-five degree angle. It can only do so if it is glued to a surface, or supported by some other object. It is possible that one could lean two cards on each other, facing each other. What was not possible on its own, is now possible as the two lean on each other, causing each other to stand. Each card is contingent on the other card to keep it from falling. Yet, someone had to place those cards into position on a stable surface so that they could stand. Even if a valid argument could be set forth that demonstrated a universe of many contingent parts without a sustaining cause, a universe without a first cause is not possible.^{^[12]} Is it possible that there is something in the whole universe that is greater than the sum of its parts? Geisler writes, The sum of many dependent parts will never equal more than a dependent whole, no matter how big it is. Only if the universe is more than all its effects, can it be uncaused and necessary. But to claim that there is a something more, uncaused and necessary on which everything in the universe is dependent is to claim exactly what the theist means by a Necessary Being on which all contingent beings depend for their existence.^{^[13]} The conclusion must be made that the universe cannot be uncaused. Every observable entity within the universe is in submission to the principle of causation. The only way the whole could be uncaused is if it has always existed and is, therefore, infinitely old. This is only possible if an infinite series of causes exists in cosmic history.

Option Three: Infinite Series The third option is that there is an infinite series of causes. This is only possible if there can be infinite moments of past history. This is a common position for non-theistic scientists and philosophers today. Matter or energy would have existed throughout all of time, without a first cause. Stephen Hawking theorizes that the universe has been forever expanding and contracting. The universe is not singular, but a series of multiple histories.^{^[14]} Others, like George Gamow, envision an extremely dense mass that gave birth to specific atoms, either in an explosion like the Big Bang, or gradually over time.^{^[15]} Neither of the proposed views gives an adequate explanation of how something could exist forever in history without having a first cause. Both universes have change. Change requires a cause. What set Hawking’s universe in motion for its perpetual expansion and contraction? What caused Gamow’s dense mass to exist? And if it had existed forever, what caused the change within it to begin the expansion? Perhaps these brilliant men lost sight on the logic of causation in all of their mathematical formulas and physical theories.

An infinite regress in time is not possible because one would never arrive at the present. There must have been a first cause to start everything. An infinite series is possible in the abstract, mathematical world. A potential infinite series is also possible in the future. But one will never arrive there, because there would always be more moments to traverse. According to Geisler, “Such a series, however, would not be actually infinite but only potentially infinite. That is, it would never be complete, always being capable of having one more added to the series.”^{^[16]} It is not possible for finite matter, limited to time, to traverse an actual infinite series in time. Therefore, it is not possible for matter to exist forever in past history.

Aquinas points out that “if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.”^{^[17]} Without a first cause there is no ultimate effect. An infinite series of causes obviously has no first cause. Furthermore, if an infinite number of causes exist, one would expect to see an infinite number of effects. However, no one can demonstrate that this is true. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Therefore, an infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. Option Four: First Cause It has been demonstrated that the universe cannot be self-caused, uncaused, or part of an infinite series of causes. This leaves only one other option—that the universe came into existence as a result of the First Cause. This cause must be a necessary, powerful, eternal being.Necessary Being This being is necessary because it is uncaused. If it is caused by another to exist, then it too is a finite, contingent being. And the question must be asked, what caused it? The problem has not been solved. There still remains a necessary being. This being cannot be self-caused. This would require it to exist prior to itself. This is logically impossible for the same reasons given that the universe cannot be self-caused. This leaves only the option that this being be uncaused, therefore, necessary.Powerful This being is powerful because its effect is a universe with power and energy. The product cannot be greater than the source. If there is a first cause, it must be greater than the effect. The material universe is reducible to energy. The first cause must be capable of producing this energy. It is appropriate to use the label “all-powerful” regarding the first cause because it is greater than the sum of all the power (energy) in the universe.Eternal This being is eternal because it must be beyond the realm of time. This statement is true only if time had a beginning. Is it actually possible that time and space is the cosmological canvas upon which God painted matter? This concept goes against the biblical notion in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “In the beginning” assumes that there was a beginning. There is nothing in the context that implies the writer only had in mind the beginning of part of the universe. It refers to the whole—heavens and earth. The Hebrew word for heavens, shamayim, refers to the abode of the visible bodies of space, like planets and stars, as well as the sky.^{^[18]} The term “heavens” includes the physical idea of “space.” This term is consistently used when the universe is in reference throughout the Old Testament.^{^[19]} Biblical writers recorded divine revelation phenomenologically, from their vantage point. This explains why the universe was thought of as the earth and that which could be seen above the earth—the heavens. Not only is the canvas analogy inconsistent with the biblical writings, it is inconsistent with logic and modern science. This supports the views that time had a beginning and the existence of a being whose origins are beyond time.

Summary

What has been established is that the universe must have been created by an eternal (beyond time), all-powerful (greater than the sum of all the power in the universe), necessary being. This is true because of the principle of causation. The efficient cause of the universe must be greater than and prior to it. Logic does not allow for an uncaused or a self-caused being, nor does it allow for an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, a necessary uncaused being must be the efficient cause of the universe. The theistic God is the only being known to man that completes the picture.

^{^[1]} George P. Klubertanz and Maurice R. Holloway, Being and God, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Being and to Natural Theology,” 222.

^{^[2]} Dagobert D. Runes, ed., “Causation”, Dictionary of Philosophy (Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1960), 48.

^{^[3]} Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, “and other essays in religion and related subjects” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 6-7.

^{^[4]} Simon Blackburn, Think (Oxford: University Press, 1999), 159-161. The title of this book seems to imply that if one knows how to think, that he will come to the same conclusions that the author does. He quotes frequently from men like Bertrand Russell and David Hume. This book receives a recommendation from Time magazine stating, “Blackburn has produced the one book every smart person should read to understand, and even enjoy, the key questions of philosophy.”

^{^[5]}Some may try to confuse the matter here by suggesting that there could be multiple causes for the universe’s existence. Geisler argues that if the cause of the universe is many, “the beings would be mutually dependent for their existence or dependent on another.” If they are dependent on another, this “other” would be God. The alternative cannot be true for “something cannot exist through a being on which it confers existence. Therefore, there must be one being through which all others exist” (Geisler, 160).

^{^[6]}Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 129. It is only fair to acknowledge here that Hawking is not a theist. His view is that since matter is reducible to energy, and energy is made up of positive and negative charges, the sum of the energy of the universe is zero. He proposes that since zero plus zero is still zero, there is no contraction of the law of conservation of energy. There could have been a time in cosmic history in which matter was increased even though the sum of the total energy of the universe was unchanged.

^{^[7]} Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle, vol. 1, “Categories” (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 20.

^{^[8]} Dictionary of Philosophy, 48.

^{^[9]} Thomas Aquinas, “The Existence of God,” Summa Theologica (London: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 13.

^{^[10]} John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1991), 333.

^{^[11]}Geisler, “God, Objections to Proofs For,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999) 296.

^{^[12]} A universe without a sustaining cause is also difficult to fathom. See “Cosmological Argument” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler.

^{^[13]}Geisler, BECA, 297.

^{^[14]} Stephen Hawking, 137.

^{^[15]} George Gamow, The Creation of the Universe (New York: Viking Press, 1952), 44-73 passim. Gamow presents several alternate views about the origin of atoms in the universe. A view that he contributed to is that matter developed from a state of hot nuclear gas. He offers no explanation for how this gas came into being, or, if it is eternal, how it could have existed forever in that state (pp. 55-61).

^{^[16]} Norman Geisler, “Infinite Series,” BECA, 366.

^{^[17]} Aquinas, 13.

^{^[18]}Francis Brown, ed., The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1906; reprint, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 1029.

^{^[19]} See Deut. 10:14; 11:21; 1 Kings 8:27; Job 14:12; Ps. 19:1.