Cosmological Arguments for God

        Cosmological Arguments are a type of argument found within Religious Apologetics. These arguments focus on proving the existence of God by appealing to causal facts about the universe/cosmos. These are my favourite arguments for Theism, and I wish to briefly explore them here by explicating what a simple cosmological argument would look like.

Quran 41:53 Soon will We show them our Signs in the horizons, and in their own souls, until it

becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a witness over all things?

Exploration

        A typical Cosmological Argument would start by making an observation: that the beings of our everyday experiences are caused and created by other beings. This is a non-controversial observation. Human-made items like utensils, writing instruments, musical instruments, vehicles, electronic devices, etc., are constructed by labourers and specialists from raw materials and commodities. Biological organisms, whether they be plants, animals, fungi, etc., are conceived by their parent(s) via the process of reproduction.

        For a being to be caused means that its existence is ultimately derived from some other object. For example, a pencil, being a human-made item, ultimately derives its existence from 1) the raw materials that constitute it and 2) the human labourer that assembled those materials together in a particular arrangement. As another example, the aforementioned human labourer, being a biological organism, ultimately derives their existence from their parents' cooperative act of procreation.

Infinite Regress?

        The argument would then makes the following assumption: that it is impossible all beings are caused. This can be proved by contradiction. Assuming this is incorrect, then all beings are caused. If all beings are caused, then the existence of any given being, b(1), is ultimately derived from some other being, b(2). But because we're assuming all beings are caused, that other being, b(2), must also have its existence derived from a further being, b(3). But this further being, b(3), must also be caused, meaning that its existence is also derived from some other being, b(4). This continues ad infinitum, leading to an infinite regress in the causal series.

        An infinite causal series is impossible. To show this is true, let's consider an analogy. Think of a chandelier being held up in a room. The chandelier, C(0), is being held up by a chain link, C(1). That chain link, C(1), is held up by another link, C(2), which is held up by a further link, C(3), and so on ad infinitum. Could this chandelier be held up by a chain with an infinite number of links? Of course not! Rather, both the chandelier and chain would come crashing down to the floor. 

        This is because the position of each member of the series depends on the previous member's position. C(0) is held up by C(1), which is held up by C(2), which is held up by C(3), and so forth. Neither the chandelier nor the chain links are capable of holding themselves up, i.e., they have their position in a derived, caused, and dependent way. So it doesn't matter how long the chain is. Even if it is infinitely long, it won't hold the chandelier up because it doesn't have the power to do so. Ultimately, you'd have to attach the chain to the ceiling, which is capable of holding itself up, i.e., it has its position in an underived, uncaused, and independent way. It is only by being attached to something capable of holding itself up that the chandelier could also be held up.

        By the same token, if all beings are caused, then no beings would exist. It doesn't matter how long a causal series is, even if it were infinite, because if no member of the series has its existence in an uncaused, underived, and independent manner, then no subsequent being along the chain would have existence either. But beings do exist, so it is impossible that all beings are caused.

Uncaused Cause

        The reasoning given in the previous section leads to the following conclusion: there must be an uncaused being. Such a being would have Aseity, meaning that it exists by its very own power in a self-sufficient and underived manner, needing no causes nor creators. Furthermore, this being would be the Ultimate Creator of all other (caused) beings and entities, being the source and fountainhead of the realities we experience and interact with in our everyday lives. Finally, such a being would be Omnipotent (All-Powerful) as, because it's the ultimate cause and source of all realities, it would be the cause and source of any and all power exercised by all other beings in the cosmos.

        Due to the fact that the uncaused being has the attributes of Aseity, Creatorship and Omnipotence, the argument makes the following judgement: such a being can rightly be called God. 

Formalization

Here is a formalized version of the argument:

1. In our experience, we find that beings exist
2. The beings of our experience seem to be caused
3. Beings are caused by other beings
4. If all beings are caused, then this would lead to an infinite regress
5. An infinite regress is impossible, so it is impossible all beings are caused
6. Therefore, there must be some beings that are uncaused
7. Such an uncaused being can rightly be called God

Evaluation

        This typical Cosmological Argument is a good start for theistic apologetics. However, this simple and rusty argument alone is not nearly enough to prove the existence of God, as understood by classical religions. Let's evaluate this argument to see where it's effective and where it may need some more work.

        The argument succeeds at proving the existence of a Creator being that has Aseity and Omnipotence. This is already very close to the common understanding of God. However, the argument doesn't say how many uncaused beings there are. The argument establishes there must be at least one uncaused being, but there could potentially be many more and even an infinite number of these beings!

        There are good arguments on both sides of this question. It may be better to assume only one uncaused being due to the principle of Ockham's Razor (to assume the simplest explanation). It may be better to assume that many uncaused beings exist because, in nature, we always find that beings exist in multiples, e.g., plants, animals, stars, planets, etc.

        Another problem of the argument is that it doesn't rule out the possibility that the uncaused being could be a natural phenomenon, e.g., some kind of energy or matter. This denies God's supernatural and divine character, reducing them to some sort of natural force. However, this isn't a problem for those who adhere to Pantheism, a belief in a God who is identifiable with the universe. I do not believe in Pantheism though, so this is a true problem for me.

        Finally, the argument does not establish the personal qualities of God. Attributes like personality or consciousness are required for the classical divine attributes of Omniscience (All-Knowing) and Omnibenevolence (All-Goodness). The argument is lacking because these attributes, essential to the classical understanding of God, are not proven. 

        In summary, this simple form of the Cosmological Argument needs a lot more work in order to convincingly prove the existence of God. Firstly, it doesn't address how many uncaused beings there are. This is a problem for those who adhere to Monotheism, the belief in only one God, but it isn't much of a problem for Polytheists, who believe in many Gods. Secondly, it doesn't address whether the uncaused being is natural or supernatural. Finally, it doesn't establish any personal and/or moral qualities of the uncaused being, e.g., wisdom, truthfulness, goodness, justice, compassion, etc.

Final Thoughts

        Here I merely outlined what the basic skeleton of a Cosmological Argument for God may look like. Without some more modifications and additions, the argument may seem really weak and even pathetic. However, I promise you that sentiment could not be further from the truth. The basic principle and intuition of the Cosmological Argument, that of all caused beings requiring an uncaused cause, is very important to theistic apologetics and even fundamental to the idea of God itself.

        I think I'd like to make a follow-up to this post to present and defend a strong variant of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion, formulated by Thomas Aquinas, a Christian saint and theologian from the 13th Century. This argument is one of my favourite arguments for Theism, and it's actually the one that personally convinced me a couple years ago.