The Cosmological Argument
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
-Genesis 1:1
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
-John 1:3
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
-Col 1:16
Cosmological arguments are arguments that look back to find the first cause of something and show that it would have to would have to be a necessary first cause what we observe now. Here are some of the more well known cosmological arguments but is not an exhaustive list of all the cosmological arguments.
For example Thomas Aquinus had his 5 ways to show the existence of God three of which are Cosmological arguments.
The First is the Argument from Motion which goes:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
The Second Way is the Causation of Existence
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.
The Third Way is Argument of Contingent and Necessary Beings.
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
God as the temporal first cause refers to God as the beginning as set in a set of causes (so he is the chronological first cause) for example if we watching a set of dominoes fall the first cause would be the finger that tips the dominoes outside that dominoes that makes the first one fall resulting rest falling.
If someone were to object and say that we have infinitely long set of dominoes falling then is no first cause then our response we show that has to be cause because we see the effect. We would have an infinite set of falling dominoes without a cause. If we are seeing certain time of large set of causes we know something proceeded it we cannot have cause with effect.
Another interesting variation of the Cosmological argument comes from William Lane Craig who uses the Big Bang in his form of the cosmological argument. The Big Bang points to the fact that there was once a time when the universe did not exist. So something outside the universe had to cause the Big Bang because there was nothing in the universe to cause it because it did not exist. This cause must be God.
God as the logical first cause is a second form of cosmological argument. This second approach is an attempt to prove the existence of God that is the first cause in the logical sense of the word first (Faith & Reason pg 125). The word first refers to preeminence or position. To describe God as the logical first cause is to view as the ultimate cause of condition of everything that exists. Returning to the dominoes example the floor or table the dominoes stand on is a the necessary condition for the dominoes in order to have the dominoes fall. The floor or table is the first cause in logical sense because without there would be not place for the series to fall. This relates to God because the world is ontologically dependent of God. For example: God minus the world equals God. The world minus God equals nothing. To describe God as the first cause is to say more than he is the efficient first cause that started the causal series but also the ultimate ground without which the world would not and could not exist.
___________________
Most of this post is dependendent on a summary I did of material found in
Faith & Reason by Ron Nash
posted by John @ 9:18 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
This is a very interesting "progression" of ideas about first causes.
Each of them, however, fails to deal with the personhood of God.
Neither do they deal with primary creativity.
I trust discussions of such things will be forthcoming?
Good work!
Hmmm I don't usually think about this one or use this argument.
Joe,
I'm not sure where John intends to take this, but here's a few thought's of my own.
There are several arguments for the nature of god (moral, epistemic, anthropological, etc.), but these all assume god's existence. So far, it looks like John is going one step back and giving arguments for that premise.
The philosophical arguments for god specifically avoid god's "personhood." Ironically, this is what gives the arguments so much strength. By not intimately tying the arguments into doctrine or theology, they have been able to adapt to changes for hundreds (or thousands) of years.
For example, Aquinas' argument comes almost directly from Aristotle, who lived three centuries before Christ. If he had linked it to the religions of his day, it would be useless to Christians now.
Further, I think it's hard to deny church doctrine has changed over time. You can't really reconcile the beliefs of Origen with Aquinas, or either of those with Spinoza, but the philosophical arguments can be used to defend them all (in most cases).
As for the argument itself:
My favorite response to this argument comes from Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian:
"...I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: 'My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' The argument is really no better than that."
The first argument involves a contradiction, and thus invalidates itself.
This problem was somewhat fixed by Muslim philosophers just preceding Aquinas by the addition that an actual inifinity cannot exist (hence Aquinas' second and third arguments). Of course, that means the argument is plagued by the debate over infinity (which still isn't settled) and, even if it were true, how we could identify the first cause (J.S. Mill, Kant).
To the second and third arguments, one is now obligated to show that that causation and necessity are themselves necessary. Russell says the idea of a "necessary being" is meaningless, and he has yet to be proved wrong to my knowledge. From his radio debate with F.C. Copleston: "Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother..." He didn't think it was meaningful to talk of a cause for the universe as a whole. As Roy Jackson puts it:
"For example, I may be able to explain the reasons why a number of people read this book (i.e. what causes you to read this book). Person one may be reading it to help him pass his exam; Person two because she is interested in the subject; Person three because he bought it by mistake, thinking it was a thriller, but decides to read it anyway; and person four because she is the wife of the author and feels it is her duty to do so. These seem like fair enough reasons, but would it then be fair for you to say, 'Yes, but what is the one cause for all of these people to read the book?' Must we assume that there is one cause over and above the cases for each individual?"
I think you get the point. To move on, I think William L. Craig's big bang theory is flawed. From what I've read on the topic (which is admittedly little), it's not that the universe ever ceased to exist, it's that it was reduced to a single point (a sigularity) where our laws of nature break down. Thus, we cannot understand it, but "it" is still there. This can be seen in Stephen Hawking's "no boundaries" theory as part of the oscillating universe theory ( A Brief History of Time, Chapter 8).
Most of my material, unless otherwise cited, came from:
Jackson, Roy (2001). The God of Philosophy. Bookcraft Limited: Great Britain.
Wow alot to answer. First Christian doctrince has changed over time but does nothing to touch the innerancy of the Bible or the person of God. Anyway its interesting and off topic. All it proves is that people change. And that people can get things wrong. For futher reading I would suggest James White's book Scripture Alone. But again all off topic.
As for the fact that some (there are alot of cosmological arguments )come from non Christian origens does nothing that to make Christians upset or worried. Just the opposite. I am glad that non Christians have come up with cosmological arguments because it affirms that God has universally revealed himself to everyone. But like I said in the beginning we need to stay on topic with the particular argument. For the pragmatic reason that we could go all over the place. But I did want to answer some of the things brought up here.
Joe and Ryan both rightly noted the the temporal cosmological argument do not do really get to the person of God. But the logical first cause argument does.
But anyway I have not yet points Ryan brought up in the cosmological argument but will soon as my current time on the computer is limited but I did not want to respond to some things.
"I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause"
This is common argument against the cosmological. But the problem is it equates God to creation by saying what is true about creation (that it needs a cause) but be true of God. This argument is compelling because God is completely diferent and outside creation. God is eternal. It does not follow that since God is eternal that leaves the universe could also be eternal. I do not that the universe being eternal is what someone would assume is true of the universe where one would with God. Not to mention the big bang Craig's cosmological argument points that the universe had a begining.
"it's not that the universe ever ceased to exist,"
no is talking about the universe end to the use of "ceased" reveals the way you are thinking.We are talking about the idea of beginning to exist from nothing. You use of cease shows your pressupossiton is the universe always existed.
But I do not think you can just the Craig's argument flawed. Wow bringing up the singularity! Its make me think back to my astronomy and 1 physics class at KSU. The problem with the singularity is that it is related to the oscilatting universe theory (which does not neccesarily have to be from what I understand) To assert that the singularity is true assumes the the oscialting universe theory is true. But we know reason for accepting this. It is a theory and very speculative. Not to mention someone would then ask why did we have the singularity what caused the igniting of the singularity of leading to the big bang.
Oh and because they are diffrent reasons for causes does nothing to undermine idea that everything had a cause. This is a response the example about different reason for reading a book.
Ok and the idea of God as the logical first cause argument bypasses and worries on infiniity can really exist or not because with this argument it does matter. because what allows the the infinite set the ontological ablity to exist? Go see the infinite dominoe example in the post. Anyway thanks for your thoughts. Ryan
Sorry about the first post, I didn't intend for it to become a discussion topic.
========================
But the problem is it equates God to creation by saying what is true about creation (that it needs a cause) but be true of God. This argument is compelling because God is completely diferent and outside creation.
========================
Premise one of the first argument was "Nothing can move itself." Sounds pretty universal to me. Why should we just apply it to "created" things?
I admitted the second and third arguments were fixed to avoid that (argument 2, premise 3; argument 3, premise 2). The point of contention now is that creation "needs a cause." This sounds like the shadow of bad Aristotelian metaphysics to me.
========================
To assert that the singularity is true assumes the the oscialting universe theory is true. But we know reason for accepting this. It is a theory and very speculative. Not to mention someone would then ask why did we have the singularity what caused the igniting of the singularity of leading to the big bang.
========================
If I remember correctly, black holes are singularities.
Regardless, yes it is a theory. Like quantum physics, or gravity, or the theory the sun will rise everyday. Why is the process acceptable for gravity, and yet the when the results are undesirable, the same process produces "speculation"? I don't want that to sound overly polemical, but it does seem like some special pleading is going on.
========================
Oh and because they are diffrent reasons for causes does nothing to undermine idea that everything had a cause. This is a response the example about different reason for reading a book.
========================
The example was a denial of one common cause. To draw out the analogy: perhaps the universe we see today is the result of several thousand processes that don't work together and have no purposeful end.
========================
Ok and the idea of God as the logical first cause argument bypasses and worries on infiniity can really exist or not because with this argument it does matter. because what allows the the infinite set the ontological ablity to exist? Go see the infinite dominoe example in the post.
========================
I saw the example, I'm just not sure what to make of it. It seems to me that it points to a pan[en]theistic interpretation of god, but that wouldn't suit you. So obviously I'm seeing very different from you, so I was still musing it over.
Premise one of the first argument was "Nothing can move itself." Sounds pretty universal to me. Why should we just apply it to "created"
=============================
thats why God has been called the unmoved mover. Nothing in the universe can move itself something outside the universe namely God had to create the universe and move the things in it. Thats why he is the unmoved mover.
=============================
As far as the far as the oscialting universe theory goes to say I was using special pleading against it just plain dishonest. You know that the oscialting universe theory is not in anyway shape or form something that is obvious and on par with one of the examples you gave gravity. 2ndly I work with a guy a Chick-Fil-A who has a masters in astromony and was able to ask him a few questions about the subject.(BTW this is unrelated sidenote to everybody not Ryan. Don't automatically assume the people who serve you at fast food restuarants are mentally defecient because they work at fast food all it means is they need a job. There is a one guy who has masters in astromony, another one person with masters in music, philosophy, divinity, and me who of course is working on my M.Div...so realize the person behind the counter could be a bright a guy...sorry not related to conversation but I did want to get that off my cheast.) Anyway he told me that oscilating universe theory is NOT the commonly accepted theory because we don't have any evidence for it. We have evidence that the universe appears to be expanding and the "big crunch" at the end is a guess which we don't have evidence for only the expansion of the universe. He also said it is untestable. I aslo realized to it really does not matter because what it is suggesting is an infinitely to by pass the cosmological argument but even if that were true it would not get the Logical first cause argument which I will say more on in a moment.
=================================
different reasons for causes still affirm cause and effect. Yuo can not have multiple causes for a first cause. If you had multiple agents we would know we are readly well beyond the first cause.
=================================
I saw the example, I'm just not sure what to make of it. It seems to me that it points to a pan[en]theistic interpretation of god, but that wouldn't suit you. So obviously I'm seeing very different from you, so I was still musing it over.
==================================
Ok first off what does how you think I'd feel about the argument have to do with argument. 2ndly I do not see it at all pointing to a panenthiestic deity and perfectly consistant with the God of the being who says this about himself in Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Post a Comment
<< Home