That Religious Studies Website


Arguments for the Existence of God

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): An introduction

Information: A review of the central themes in cosmological arguments for the existence of God, from the Judeo-Christian tradition. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

The key idea in cosmological arguments is that the world, the universe, and everything in them is dependent on something other than themselves for their existence. In other words, cosmological arguments attempt to justify God's existence on the assumption that nothing can come from nothing, and that God must exist in order for anything to be here.

It is important to speak of cosmological arguments (plural), rather than 'The Cosmological Argument'. This is because there are several different types of 'cosmological arguments' explored in the philosophy of religion.

The idea that God must exists in for the world and universe to be here, immediately sets up a distinction between contingent and necessary things. Contingent things are those which may or may not exist. For example, I am a contingent being because there was no guarantee that my parents would meet and conceive me the way they did. I am also a contingent being because my existence in the world and the universe is not required, in order for anything else to be here (other than for any children I might have). I also have no reason to believe that when I die, that the world and the universe will cease to exist without me in it. On the other hand, necessary things are those things which have to be present in order for you, me, the world and the universe to exist. For example, according to certain scientists, without the right conditions being present at the time of the 'big bang', nothing could have developed in this world or universe as it is. Therefore, in order for us to be here, it was necessary for things to be as they were at that time. In terms of cosmological arguments, God has necessary existence because everything else being contingent, is dependent on something that necessarily exists (which could only be God). Unless God necessarily existed, nothing else would be here!

Cosmological arguments are grounded in knowledge based on our experience of things, and as such are a posteriori. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, which is knowledge said to be true prior to (or before) our experience.

Plato's Cosmological Argument

How can the thing moved by another ever be the beginning of change? (Plato)

Plato (428-347BCE) introduces a cosmological argument in his book the Laws. After examining different types of motion in the universe, he says that the greatest form of this is when an object has the power not only to move other things, but also itself as well. On the basis of this he notes that matter alone cannot achieve this, but must be moved some spirit (or soul).  Therefore, the soul must be the oldest form of motion for matter, as only this has the power to move both itself and other objects.

In order to understand what Plato means here, think of what happens to a body when something dies. Without some 'life-force' (soul, spirit or whatever), the physical body does not move. However, with a 'life-force' (soul, spirit etc.) it does. This suggests that this 'force' is greater than the body, which although it can move other things, appears incapable of moving itself.

Taken to a cosmic level, we can see that for Plato the world and the universe must have some 'power' behind it, and that this must be something other than anything found in them. If so, this would suggest that the world and the universe are ordered by some super-natural being, or God.

Plato realised that the presence of good and evil in the world, might lead to the suggestion that there are two cosmic souls: one good and one evil. However, he argued that the world and the universe must ultimately be organised by a good soul, as there is more order and regularity in them, than chaos.

Aristotle's unmoved mover

Aristotle's theory of the unmoved-mover, has been extremely influential in the history of cosmological arguments. The key idea is exactly what it says - an unmoved-mover! However, Aristotle arrives at this by first considering the notion of time.

If something is said to be in motion, then it must have been capable of moving. One cannot move an immovable object! However, to move something from x to y is actually a time-based activity:

How can there be any 'before' and 'after' without the existence of time? Or how can there be any time without the existence of motion? (Aristotle)

Now we could argue that all things are actually at rest, or may never have had a starting point, but this would not be satisfactory for Aristotle. This is because he would want to know why were they at rest, or what 'caused' them to be resting? Furthermore, to be at 'rest' implies a stopping point, which then leaves the question begging as to what caused the thing to start moving, before it came to rest.

The series must start with something, for nothing can come from nothing (Aristotle)

All this leads Aristotle to the conclusion, that time and motion are eternal.

So what has all this got to do with cosmological arguments, and an unmoved mover? Well, we know (from observing things around us) that something only moves, because something else caused it to do so. Yet what caused all the motion in the world and the universe to begin? Things cannot have always been moving, because motion is a time-based activity which requires us to always look for a cause. An event leads back to a cause, and another cause, and another cause and so on... So Aristotle reasons that there needs to be an eternal causer of causes (or motion), in the world. If motion is a fundamental (or necessary) feature of our world, we are led to consider the existence of something outside of the world (or transcendent to it), which is not limited by time (and motion). In other words, we are looking for an eternal uncaused-causer of everything.

One of the interesting attributes of Aristotle's unmoved mover, is that it does nothing. This is because if it does anything, it becomes subject to 'time' (and motion), and so we naturally begin asking, 'What caused it to do x, or y or z'. In fact, Aristotle said that all the unmoved mover does (and can do), is contemplate its own existence.

Something to think about: According to Aristotle's logic, can the unmoved mover ever be the first cause of anything?

Advertisement

Thomas' Aquinas' five ways

The most well known cosmological arguments are found in Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways. Heavily influenced by Aristotelian philosophy, Aquinas set out three forms of cosmological arguments based on the way things are in the universe, and argued that these may be used as evidence to support God's existence:

  • Motion: Things move in the world, because they are moved by something else. The existence of motion in the universe requires us to consider how (and where) motion began.
  • Causes: Things happen in the world (effects), because they have been caused to happen by something else. The fact that our world exists (an effect), requires us to consider what caused this.
  • Contingency: Things in the world (including the world itself), could either be here or not. The fact that things could potentially not be here, requires us to consider what had to exist, in order for everything else to do so.

For more information on Aquinas' five ways, see Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 1): Introduction, motion, causation and Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, goodness, design.

Moral realism

Cosmological arguments not only provide evidence for God's existence, but may also be used to justify the existence of moral norms. For instance, unless God existed it might be said there could be no basis for ethics. The argument here is that without God, we would merely be subject to our own ideas of what right and wrong is, and left in a sea of moral relativism. However, if God exists then many Christians argue that we can have a definite sense of right and wrong (moral realism), and also what the purpose of life is. Therefore, 'first causes' do not simply concern the physical world, but can affect every aspect of our being. As such, for some Christians the cost of rejecting cosmological arguments as a proof of God's existence, is too high a price to pay when moral factors are taken into account.

Although theists might argue that humans need God in order to have a sense of morality, purpose and meaning in life, there is no need to believe in God in order to live a moral life. For instance, Buddhism is an example of a spiritual pathway giving millions of people meaning and purpose in their life, despite not advocating any belief in God/gods. Likewise, many humanist associations claim that people do not have to necessarily believe in God, in order to live a good life, and in fact they often argue that belief in God can inspire quite the opposite behaviour in people.

Some issues

Circular arrows

The biggest problem faced by those who want to justify God's existence using a form of cosmological argument, is how to prevent God from being subject to the same premises, as those required for these arguments to 'work'. For example, if every effect has a cause, and God is an effect, then what caused God? Now clearly, supporters of cosmological arguments begin with the idea that God is eternal and uncreated, and as such do not consider God to be subject to these premises. Furthermore, theists would argue that unless God is assumed to have necessary existence, and be an uncaused cause of everything else, then cosmological arguments will never get off the ground. However, the problem for theists is that very often their critics do not allow them the privilege of such assumptions.

Something to think about: How valid do you think this criticism of cosmological arguments is? Is valid to argue that because a broken window (effect) has a cause (i.e. someone threw a brick through it), that God should also have a cause?

Another problem with cosmological arguments is defining what the role of God is, after God is said to have created the world and the universe. For instance, let's assume that God is the first cause of the world and the universe - then what? Based on what we know of the world and the universe we inhabit, there appears to be very little God can do after that. The law of the conservation of energy (that the amount of energy in the universe must remain constant in order for there to be 'laws of nature'), seems to suggest that God cannot act in the world, for to do so would surely add to the sum total of energy around us (thus leading our 'natural laws' to become unpredictable). Of course, we could say that God is not outside the world but within the world, or even is the world. Yet this would lead us to conclude that God came into existence when the world began. This is also not the God Aquinas had in mind, when he set out his cosmological arguments!

The idea that God is everything (or everything is God) is known as pantheism - made up of the Greek words pan (everything) and theos (God). An associated idea is panentheism, which includes the word en (in). In contrast to pantheism, panentheism says that everything is in God, which means that (theoretically) God is said to still be different to the world (although some might disagree).

Of course, God may have been the 'first cause' of the world's existence, but this does not mean God is still around today. God might have 'lit the blue touch-paper' and then 'walked away', leaving the universe to independently spark and explode into action. Although cosmological arguments be correct to conclude that God created the world and the universe, they cannot prove that God is still around today. Some might say that this does not matter, and that the important thing is that people simply believe in God. Others would no doubt disagree!

In the end people might be led to a deistic view of God, on the basis of cosmological arguments.

Deism is the idea that God started the world, and then 'walked away'.

Of course, the question begs as to what reason there would be for anyone to worship or pray to such a God? If the only reason people have to believe in God is to explain why the universe is here, then there appears to be little point in them worshipping or praying to a God who is no longer around to hear them. Yet if God is around and does answer prayers, then we are left explaining how this understanding of God fits with the knowledge we have of the natural world, and in particular how God can act in it whilst preserving some sense of continuity and harmony, with regard to the laws of nature.

Back to top