Have you ever stared up at the night sky and wondered, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
You’re not alone. It’s a question that has plagued humanity for thousands of years.
The Cosmological Argument, one of many arguments for the existence of God, attempts to solve this deep question.
The universe, in all its vastness and complexity, begs the question: where did it all come from? Is there a necessary, transcendent cause behind the cosmos, or is the universe simply a brute fact, an eternal, unexplained reality?
Prepare to delve into one of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God’s existence.
Introduction
The Cosmological Argument is a philosophical attempt to prove the existence of God by examining the universe and its origins.
It essentially argues that since the universe exists, and everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the universe itself must also have a cause.
This cause is God.
In its various forms, the Cosmological Argument explores concepts like causality, contingency, and the necessity of a first, uncaused cause to explain the universe’s existence.
Some of the different forms of this argument include the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’ Five Ways, and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.
Let’s take a look at the core premise of the Cosmological Argument, as well as its different variations.
The Core Premise: Causality
So, what exactly is the Cosmological Argument and what it’s all about?
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
The principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical concept that essentially states that everything must have a reason, cause, or explanation.
The basic premise is that nothing occurs without a reason why it is so.
It asserts that there are no brute facts, meaning that every fact or event can be explained.
As it pertains to the Cosmological Argument, this principle is used to argue that the universe itself must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
The intuitive appeal of causality in our daily lives
The concept of causality is deeply ingrained in how we experience and interpret the world around us.
It’s not just a philosophical abstraction; it’s a fundamental aspect of our daily lives.
From the moment we’re born, we witness and observe consequences to our actions.
Babies cry, parents respond. Toddlers hit towers of blocks, the tower falls and scatters. Children push the envelope with parents to see the response (and to see what they can get away with). We flip light switches and push buttons and see what happens.
We understand intuitively that causality exists. And causality helps us make sense of the world’s complexity. It allows us to predict and control our environment.
If we understand that rain causes the ground to become wet, we can plan accordingly.
If we know that eating certain foods causes us to feel sick, we can avoid them.
As we learn the cause and effect relationship, we instinctively ask for the causes of the universe and everything around us.
Variations of the Cosmological Argument
There have been different forms, or variations, to the Cosmological Argument that have spawned throughout history. Each one offers a unique approach to the argument for the creation of the universe.
Among those different variations, we will examine the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Five Ways, and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument for the existence of God, emphasizing the beginning of the universe.
The essential premise of the argument is that the universe had a beginning. It is not eternal. This premise is pretty well agreed upon by humanity at this point, despite the fact that it was once thought that the universe has existed forever.
That view, of course, is illogical. If the universe was eternal, meaning it had an infinite number of days in the past, then today never would have arrived.
There had to be a beginning, and most logical human beings finally came around to understanding that. Now, humans just disagree on what caused that beginning.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Pretty standard stuff. While most of humanity agrees with Premise 2, that the universe began to exist, plenty of atheists want to dispute that it must have a cause. They want to claim that all of this matter, everything around us — including us — was completely random and yet somehow still came from nothing.
And yet, nobody can seem to reproduce creating something from nothing.
That’s quite the leap of faith, if you ask me. To think it happened by random chance, by accident, and without cause. That takes more faith than the idea of a Creator.
Aquinas’s Five Ways
Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century philosopher and theologian, presented five arguments for the existence of God, commonly known as the “Five Ways.”
Those “five ways,” or five arguments are: the Argument from Motion, the Argument from Efficient Cause, the Argument from Contingency, the Argument from Gradation, and the Argument from Design.
The Argument from Motion (Unmoved Mover)
The argument from motion observes that things in the world are in motion (or change).
It argues that everything that is moved is moved by something else. This is similar to the argument that everything that exists was caused by something else. The premise is simple: things don’t just happen by themselves!
To avoid infinite regress (a series of chain reactions that goes on forever), there must have been a first “mover.” A first mover of said objects that was unmoved itself.
The most likely explanation for that first unmoved mover is God.
The Argument from Efficient Cause (First Cause)
This argument observes that things in the world have causes. This is a reiteration of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
It argues that nothing can be the cause of itself.
Again, to avoid an infinite regress, there must be a first, uncaused cause, with the most logical explanation being God.
The Argument from Contingency (Necessary Being)
This argument distinguishes between contingent beings and necessary beings.
Contingent beings are those that can or cannot exist. Necessary beings are ones that must exist.
This argument states that if everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed.
Since things do exist, there must be a necessary being that brought them into existence.
This necessary being is most likely God.
The Argument from Gradation (Degrees of Perfection)
This argument observes that things in the world have varying degrees of perfection. There are different levels of goodness, beauty, usability, executability, etc.
There must be a maximum of perfection, so says this argument, that causes (and defines) the lesser degrees of perfection.
If there are no levels of gradation, how can we compare two or more items? How can we say the item on the left is better than that on the right?
How can any of us have “room for improvement” if there is no higher standard of perfection?
The maximum of perfection is best explained through the existence of God.
The Argument from Design (Teleological Argument)
This argument observes that natural things often exhibit purposeful behavior.
It stresses that if something appears to be carrying out a purpose, it was probably designed and created to do so, rather than it conveniently happening by accident.
The Argument from Design then states that this purposefulness implies an intelligent designer.
The most logical explanation for an intelligent designer is an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
The third example of the Cosmological Argument is the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.
This principle, brought forth by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, states that everything must have a reason or explanation.
The cornerstone of this argument is the principle of sufficient reason. This principle states that there is a reason for everything that exists and for every action that occurs. Nothing happens without reason.
This argument also emphasizes the contingency of the universe, just like Aquinas’ Five Ways.
The argument addresses the question of, “Why?” Why does the universe exist rather than not exist? Because the universe is contingent, there must be a reason for its existence outside of itself.
Leibniz argues that the ultimate explanation for the universe’s existence must be a “necessary being.” This is a being that cannot not exist; its existence is logically necessary.
This necessary being is identified as God.
Strengths of the Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument offers a number of strong points that really support the existence of God.
The argument has an intuitive appeal. Human beings desire an explanation for things.
I remember when I was a kid, I was so inquisitive. I used to ask my parents how everything worked.
This craving for knowledge and for reasons for why things are the way they are seemingly backs up the idea that those reasons do exist.
The argument also relies on fundamental principles, such as causality. A simple observation of the world around us will inform us that actions occur as a result of other actions.
If I sit and watch a ball resting in the grass and hope to see it move, I realize it won’t move until and unless something comes by and causes it to move, such as a strong wind gust or a person kicking it.
This argument also has the ability to point towards a transcendent cause. As you work your way up the chain of causation, something bigger and stronger than us has to be at work.
Lastly, proponents of the Big Bang Theory don’t realize how aligned that view is with the Kalam argument.
Those who believe in the Big Bang Theory believe that there was a beginning to the universe. And because there was a beginning to the universe, there had to be a cause for it.
And since nothing can cause itself to begin to exist, that cause has to be outside of space, time, and matter.
That cause has to be God.
Conclusion
The Cosmological Argument, in its various forms, presents a compelling case for the existence of God.
Using intuitive appeal to causality as well as basic logic of the world and things around us, the Cosmological Argument makes perfect sense as a means to explain and support the existence of a Creator.
We know that something cannot come from nothing. We know that actions are caused by other actions. And we know that contingent things rely on the existence of other things while necessary things can exist independently on their own.
Therefore, as you sit and marvel at the wonders of the universe, you can have confidence that everything you see — those things not “put together” by man — had to have come from a necessary being, since none of it created itself.
That necessary being is our almighty God.
