Cosmology

Probably the most valid argument proposed for God’s existence to date is the Cosmological Argument, also called the Argument from Contingency. What this basically states in its most elemental form is that everything that we know to exist has had a creator, in other words, all things are contingent. A watch was made by a watchmaker and the watchmaker made by his parents and so on and so forth. The argument states that we cannot go on infinitely, that ultimately there must be something that caused the universe. They call this uncaused causer God.

The basic form of the argument follows thus:

1. There exist contingent beings (things that can not exist)
2. Contingent things need causes
3. The universe is a contingent being
4. Infinite Regress is impossible
5. Therefore, we need a necessary being to create the universe

There are several responses to the cosmological argument, and all of them require a detailed look at exactly what is going on in the five points of the argument. Fair warning: since this argument for the existence of God is incredibly philosophical, the answers will delve deeply into philosophy. Let’s go!

First, let’s look at premise 2. What exactly is going on here? As I have already said, we can see that everything around us has a cause. It’s been made by something: the watch by the watchmaker, and the watchmaker by his parents. So now, arguers of cosmology seek to take this observation and make it a priori (a priori means that it is a necessary logical condition before anything else, it literally means “from what is before”). However, does everything always need a cause? This is tricky, because we get into the finer points of logic.

We cannot say that everything has a cause a priori because it is impossible for us to make this into a universal law. The only reason we think everything has a cause is because we always see it. However, I could go my entire life without seeing a dead human being and thus conclude that if something is human, it must be alive. Is this reasonable? Certainly! It’s all I’ve ever seen. Is this true? Not really. Therefore, because it is based on observable data, it is never going to be a priori.

How about premise 3? This one is tricky, basically, it means that the universe had a beginning, and is therefore subject to the contingency argument. There are a few answers to this.

1. First, we have to ask ourselves why exactly the universe has to be contingent. The most common justification for this is that because all the parts of the universe (all the things we see around us) are contingent, so is the universe itself. However, this argument commits what is called the fallacy of composition. In other words, if a brick is small, does this mean that anything made of bricks will be small? Definitely not. (However, it is worth admitting, that there is another way of looking at it. Because a brick is, well, a brick, that means that anything made of brick will be brick – or at least made of bricks. This depends on how you take it.)

2. The second objection to this reasoning is that – even if we accept the speculative nature of origin theories, we still have some possible explanations that do not rely on a conception of God. I don’t claim to be a theoretical physicist, but if you want to get further into origin theory, some things to research would be the Multiverse Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, Hawkin’s No Boundary Theory, and the quantum fluctuation explanation from Supersymmetric String Theory (also called Superstring Theory).

3. Third, there is always the objection that we really don’t know, and this is true, and a very valid argument. We don’t know, we don’t know if we will ever know, and we can hardly argue from a high scientific hill until we do. However, there are two components to this argument. First, and most obviously, if there is a possibility that we will know, then proof cannot flow either way. Second, as some philosophers have contended, we cannot ask the cause of something that we cannot experience. In other words, if it is scientifically impossible for us to actually gather the necessary evidence, as it very well might be, then it is preposterous for us to be expected to do so. Thus, it becomes a moot point.

Now let’s go to premise 4. Premise 4 states that we cannot have an infinite regress, in other words, things cannot go on and on forever. However, it is worth taking the time to wonder why. In practical application, it is, of course, impossible to have an infinite anything, however, mathematically and philosophically the idea is perfectly valid. Because of this, there is no reason to reject the notion of infinite regress. (Note: the debate gets very complicated on this point, as indeed upon all points, this is only a basic summary).

But now let’s consider why a God would be exempt from such a regress. The question: “what created God?” and the subsequent reply: “he does not need a creator” are unanswered and unjustified respectively. There is no real reason why God would be exempt from the creators, and thus this point, as indeed all points, must be rejected.

Then, just overall. Now the most unlikely piece of this entire thing is that any “necessary” explanation for the beginning of the world would be a god that answers prayers and sees everything. Even more unlikely: how could we possibly pin down the explanation to any one god? In other words, which god do we talk about? Odin? Zeus? The Judeo-Christian conception of God?