Cosmological Argument

Cosmological comes from the greek word ‘Kosmos’ meaning order/ world

A posteriori- based on empirical evidence

Inductive- provides probable support for its conclusions (persuasion over proof)

Main argument: 

P1: Everything that exists has a cause

P2: Therefore the universe must have a cause

P3: That cause is God

C: God exists 

Ultimate question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Plato: “Shall we say that it is a soul which controls heaven and earth?”

Plato argued that there must be a prime mover who can move themselves and all things within the universe.

Aristotle: “the series must start with something, since nothing comes from nothing.”

Aristotle argued that there must be an ultimate source to all changes within the universe and that creates a chain of cause and effect.

Nothing can take place without a sufficient reason = total explanation

e.g. If I explain how I made a cake by saying I iced it, then it is a partial explanation. To give a full explanation I must explain how before I can ice the cake, it must be cooled, and before that it must be made by mixing the ingredients etc.

To get to a sufficient reason, we have to reach something that is not contingent i.e. it is self-explanatory.

Since everything in the world is contingent, the sufficient reason that is non-contingent must lie outside the universe. This is God.

Aquinas introuduced his five ways in his Summa Theologica. Only the first three are relevant for the cosmological argument. The first one is...

Motion

P1: There are some things in motion or state of change

P2: Nothing can change by itself- everything is a secondary mover (Plato said this)

P3: If everything is a secondary mover then there would be an infinite regress of movers

P4: If P3 were true then there would be no secondary movers, but this is false (reductio ad absurdum argument used here)

C: Therefore, there must be an unmoved prime mover. This is God.

Causation

P1: Every event has a cause

P2: Nothing can be the cause of itself

P3: If we imagine that this order of causes goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause

P4: If P3 were true then there would be no causes at all, but this is false. (reductio ad absurdum argument is used here)

C: Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause. This is God.

Contingency

P1: In nature, everything can either exist or not exist

P2: Given infinite time, eventually everything will not exist

P3: If there was once nothing, nothing could have come from it

P4: Therefore, some thing or some things must exist necessarily

P5: Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused

P6: You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as then there’d be no explanation for the series itself

C: Therefore, there must be a being which contains its own necessity. This is God.

Strengths:

Didn’t intend to show a Christian or perfect God

Inductive argument- about persuasion over proof

Supported by scientific theories such as the Big Bang

Natural for humans to want explanations (Richard Swinburne said this)

Weaknesses:

Universe could be infinite...how do we know it isn't?

Big jump from there is a cause to that cause is God...raises the question of who caused God? (Brian Davies said this)

Inductive argument- no actual proof

In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), he questions why the universe even needs a beginning?

We have no experience of universe making and therefore can’t talk knowledgeably about it

Those searching for a sufficient reason are looking for something that can’t be found

Argues that Aquinas has made a fallacy of composition. Just because things within the universe have a cause doesn't mean that automatically applies to the universe itself (Aquinas makes an assumption). For example, if a wall is made of small bricks, it does not mean that the entire wall is small.

Immanuel Kant:

Humans can't apply their knowledge to something they don’t understand

If God is transcendent and created the universe, we can’t confidently talk about something he has created as it is beyond human understanding

Anthony Kenny:

Rejected Aquinas’ first and second ways as humans and animals move themselves

Used Newton’s first law of motion to argue this

Steady State theory:

Scientific theory that states the universive should look the same at any time or place. It has no beginning or end and has always been here.

Big Bang theory:

Scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. However, it can be used by scientists and theists...was it random or caused by God?

Islamic version of the argument introduced Al-Ghazali

Deductive, unlike orignial version of the argument as it argues from general to particular

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause

P4: If the universe has a cause of its existence, it must be God

C: Therefore, God exists.

William Lane Craig introduced a modern version

P1: The universe had a beginning.

P2: That beginning was caused.

P3: That cause was probably personal (making the choice to create).

C: Therefore, God exists.

The universe does not need an explanation (universe is a brute fact)

To question whether the universe has a cause has no meaning to him

It is meaningless to argue about the beginning of the universe

Supporter of infinite regress

Believes the universe is contingent.

Argues that the universe needs an external explanation with a being that is self-explanatory.

Rejects the idea of infinite regress.

Uses Ockham’s Razor, which suggests the simplest answer is the most probable

Therefore, whilst God’s existence isn’t proven, it is probable and so the best explanation

Also said that humans strive for an explanation