That Religious Studies Website
| Home | Articles | Lessons | Reviews | Interviews | Videos | Features | Blog |
Arguments for the existence of God (Part 2): Cosmology
Information: Part 2 of a review of various arguments for the existence of God. Click here to read Arguments for the existence of God (Part 1): Introduction and design. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.
Cosmological arguments
As with those based on the notion of design, cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what caused everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began.
Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically want to know where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we would need to find the uncaused-cause of everything else.
The Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 CE)
proposed several
cosmological arguments. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and
that this leads us to seek the first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things
only move because they are moved by something else, which leads us to
seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in
order for anything else to be here, it required the presence of something that existed before anything else did. And being a Christian, he believed that
the world is only be here, because (the Christian) God created everything.
Here are these two cosmological arguments Aquinas presented, in more detail:
- The argument from first causes: Whatever exists is here, because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents). Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes. God is the first cause of everything here.
- The argument from motion: Things move (or become something else), because something moves them to do so. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover of everything here.
Lots of scientists would accept that the world and the universe need a first cause, and began at some definite point in the past. This is because they too would agree that it is impossible for there to be a never-ending chain of causes, and that in order for the world and the universe to be here, they need a first cause. In modern cosmology, the first cause of everything is said to be the 'Big-bang' [1].
Advertisements
Summary: Key features of cosmological arguments
- Nothing happens in the world without a reason.
- Events in the world have been caused to occur because of something else.
- Things in the world and the universe did not cause themselves to come into existence.
- To deal with the problem of an infinite regress, the world and the universe must have a first cause.
- The reason why the world and the universe are here, is because of God.
- Cosmological arguments are based on comparing the way things work in the world, to the way things must be in the universe (analogy).
Evidence which supports cosmological arguments
- We can see from our own experience that things happen in the world, because something else has caused them to happen.
- That we are here because of our parents, and they are here because of theirs etc., is an example of something which cannot have an infinite regress. Life has not always been here. Something must have caused humans to be here.
- Science tells us that the world had a starting point (The 'Big-bang').
- Modern cosmology tells us that stars are moving away from us, and that the universe is expanding. This suggests it had a starting point.
Debates about cosmological arguments
One
of the biggest problems with cosmological arguments, is that they seem to be
self-defeating. Cosmological arguments say that everything has to have a cause,
and that nothing can be here without having been caused to be here, by something
else. They also suggest that God caused everything to be here, because God is
said to be the uncaused-cause of everything else.
However, if everything has to have a cause, and nothing can be an
uncaused-cause, this seems to leave the question begging, 'If God caused everything, then
who caused God?' In order words, why say that everything needs a
cause, but God does not!
Of course, it is well-known that scientific explanations for the origins of life, do require God to exists in order to explain why anything is here. In fact, it seems that the more 'science' works to explain the world around us, the less we need of God.
God has often been used to bridge gaps in our scientific knowledge (aka God of the gaps). For example, in the past people would often pray or offer gifts to their God in order to ensure a good harvest, or say to become pregnant. However, 'science' has now shown us that good soil and the right fertilizer will maximise our crop yield, and ovulation tests will help women become pregnant. So it seems that the more 'science' gives us knowledge of the world we live in, so the less it appears we have a need for God!
Despite the fact that we have explanations for the origins of life which do
not need to suggest God's involvement, these still do not escape the question of
ultimate origins. For instance, modern cosmological theories of the origins of
life tell us that the singularity which caused the 'Big-bang' was the product of
events we know nothing of, because we are unable to 'see' them because
nothing really existed prior to it. Yet we know (and
cosmologists agree) that things have to begin somewhere, so the universe cannot have appeared from nothing for no reason. To say otherwise
would be a problem for scientists, who believe the existence of the universe can be explained.
The fact that the existence of the universe requires an explanation is not proof of God's existence. However, the fact that we can only speculate about events before the 'Big-bang', means the possibility of God's existence must remain open.
Finally, some people believe that science is good at telling us how life began, but cannot explain why it did, and suggest that maybe this is where God is needed (and why God must exist).
Further reading
Notes
[1] The term 'Big-bang' is misleading, as it suggests the idea of an explosion caused by such things as dynamite. In fact, the central idea of the 'Big-bang' is that the universe began from an expansion and spreading out of energy (rather like turning on a light), than any explosion of things (like popping a light bulb). The term 'Big-bang was invented by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) as a way of ridiculing the (now accepted) idea that universe is expanding, which is also said to be a proof in support of the 'Big-bang' hypothesis.