Intro
The cosmological argument is one of the primary arguments that are used to prove God’s existence. There are even versions of it that go back to ancient Greek philosophy, medieval Islamic thinkers, Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and continue among modern philosophers today. It’s the argument that just won’t go away.
It may seem simple at first when you ask questions like, “why does anything exist at all?” “Why is there a universe instead of nothing?” and “Why are there causes, laws, matter, energy, and existence itself”? Those who support the argument often believe that the existence of the universe goes back in time to some ultimate cause or necessary being. This being is often identified as God.
Those who are critical of the argument argue that there are logical problems, unsupported assumptions, and possibly special pleading.
In this blog, we’ll take a look at what the cosmological argument says and then look at its strengths and weaknesses. I’ll even look at the problems found in both the arguments and the objections.
Part 1 — What Is the Cosmological Argument?
There are several forms of the cosmological argument, but the general idea is that things exist. These things that exist seem to depend on causes and explanations. It argues that it is impossible or insufficient to have an infinite chain of causes, so there must have been some ultimate, independent cause that brought everything into existence. The first cause is often looked at as God. It seems like a valid argument because if you try to think back in time as far as you go, there must have been a cause for everything. For example, what caused the Big Bang? There must have been something before it.
One famous version of the cosmological argument comes from Thomas Aquinas. He believed that everything in motion is moved by something else. If every cause is dependent on something else forever, we wouldn’t be able to explain why anything exists. So he concluded that there must be a first unmoved mover.
Part 2 — The Strengths of the Cosmological Argument
1. It Appeals to Common Human Intuition
This argument has been able to endure centuries because it feels intuitively reasonable. We can see in ordinary life that things have causes. If you hear a noise, then there must have been a cause for that noise to have happened.
I can cause my guitar to make music. A maker is the cause behind making the guitar. That maker came into existence because of sperm and egg. That came about from a long evolutionary process. That traces us back in time to the first cell that was made. The cell had to have come kind of cause for it to come into existence. For it to come into existence, the Earth had to exist. For the Earth to exist, the Milky Way needs to exist. Eventually you get back to the Big Bang.
The cosmological argument asks, Why should the universe be exempt from explanation.
2. It Addresses Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
While science can explain such things as how stars form, how evolution works, how gravity behaves, why we get tired, etc., the cosmological argument pushes the question of why reality exists at all. This question has stumped the brightest of minds, and there seems to be no solid answer; it’s just a guessing game.
3. It Fits Certain Scientific Ideas
The Big Bang model indicates that things such as time, space, matter, and energy came from an earlier state. Those who support the cosmological argument argue that if the universe had a beginning, it would have to have a cause that was beyond itself. Some of the modern cosmological arguments include the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
4. It Attempts to Avoid Infinite Regress
Another strong point of the cosmological argument is that it poses a challenge to infinite regress. If everything has an explanation of what came before it, can we truly explain anything?
Reality must ultimately require something that is self-existent, necessary, or foundational. If this is not the case, then explanation never reaches completion.
Part 3 — The Weaknesses and Criticisms
1. Who Created God?
Many people who criticize often resort to the question of who created God. In order to remain consistent and say that everything needs a cause, then wouldn’t there be a cause for God? This, of course, has the problem of no true beginning and requires believing that something has existed forever. Many people who support the argument believe that God operates outside of time and space, so only something which includes time and space can be created by something outside.
2. The Universe May Not Need a Cause
Perhaps the universe has been around forever, just in different forms. If this were the case, it would not need a cause. This seems to go against the idea of a Big Bang, which brought space and time into existence. It seems to be a trick of the mind to be able to believe that something has eternally existed. However, it is weird to think how everything may have had a beginning. It’s like asking if there is an end to space. If so, what is at the end? A brick wall? We know the universe is expanding, but what is it expanding into?
The idea of God existing outside of time and space seems to make more sense than the idea that the physical universe somehow began on its own. This, of course, is the flaw of the “God of the gaps” in that we are filling God in science when it comes to things we don’t scientifically understand.
The cosmological argument assumes that something must be explained, but why does there need to be an explanation? Perhaps existence doesn’t require further explanation. Maybe the universe just simply exists.
3. Quantum Physics Complicates Causality
Things seemed to fit well together when it came to classical physics, but in comes quantum physics to screw everything up. Some quantum events seem to be probabilistic or spontaneous. This raises more questions than it answers such as “Does everything really need a deterministic cause?” “Are classical intuitions about causality universally reliable?”
Supporters of the cosmological argument may counter with the idea that quantum events still occur within underlying physical laws and systems. Quantum mechanics has brought a lot to the scientific community and there is so much that we don’t understand.
4. Even If There Is a First Cause, Why Call It God?
Perhaps it was something different that brought the universe into existence. Why exactly does it have to be a personal God which can be found in many religions? Perhaps there is something else that exists outside of space and time that caused things to happen. Does it necessarily need to be an intelligent being? Perhaps the first cause is impersonal, abstract, unknown, or very far from being like what the traditional religions teach.
Some believe that a thinking process was necessary in order to organize the universe in a way that intelligent beings could have life. That is for a whole other argument called the Fine-Tuned Argument which I plan on writing about pretty soon.
Part 4 — Problems With the Criticisms
While I brushed on it somewhat, let’s look at the problems with the criticisms.
1. “The Universe Just Exists” May Not Actually Explain Anything
This is a problem because it comes to a dead stop in the argument. Anyone can see that the universe exists, but we are trying to figure out how it got here. It doesn’t feel like an explanation but more like stopping the inquiry.
2. Infinite Regress Remains Philosophically Difficult
Even those that criticize the cosmological argument often have trouble when it comes to infinite regress. Can an infinite chain of dependent causes truly exist? This is one of those arguments that could go either way. They both have valid points, but neither can act as proof of a conclusion. Has there always been something that has existed? Science doesn’t have the answers, but it is something to think about. There is no universal consensus when it comes to this.
3. Science May Not Fully Answer Metaphysical Questions
Science is good at answering a lot of questions when it comes to mechanisms, processes, and physical interaction. Scientists are discovering things every day. However, metaphysical questions may go beyond what science can teach us. Questions like “Why is there existence at all?” linger in the back of many people’s heads. Does this mean the “God of the Gaps is accurate? Not necessarily. God has yet to be 100% proven, but if God exists beyond science, how is it that science will eventually reach him?
Part 5 — The Deeper Issue: Human Cognitive Limits
One thing remains certain and that is the fact that there are limits to human reasoning. We can only wonder and try to think up ideas as to why anything exists. Humans can understand things like survival, physical interactions, many objects, some of the laws of physics, and so on.
Questions such as “why does existence exist?” go beyond what we can have a solid answer to. There are many who answer the question, but how do they know they are correct? I had a friend tell me the meaning of life is to learn and to teach. This sounded good at first, but what good will that do when we bring that knowledge to the grave?
There will be a time when humans will be extinct. What would all the purpose be in learning and teaching when it all will end? Perhaps we should just enjoy life while we have it to live. Unfortunately, there is a lot of suffering in the world, and it can be impossible to enjoy life for some. To believe that there is something deeper than just this life gives people hope. However, it does not act as proof, just speculation.
Questions brought up by the cosmological argument include “Can something come from nothing?” “Can infinity exist physically?” “What caused time to be part of existence?”
In some ways, I don’t think we are supposed to know, and that is the beauty of it. Debates of the cosmological argument still continue today without resolution.
Part 6 — My Perspective
The cosmological argument touches something deeply existential, which is why it remains so compelling. You may think that existence cries out for a meaning and reason. I remember a Kreator song called “No Reason to Exist.” It ends with the line, “There has to be a reason to exist.” Many of us have a drive to figure out the purpose of life, but there are no clear answers. If there is a God that created us, there seems like there must be a purpose of some sort for creating us.
I think that sometimes both sides oversimplify the issue. Some use the cosmological argument to support their own religious worldview. On the other hand, some atheists dismiss it too quickly as though the existence of reality itself is not philosophically mysterious.
Conclusion
The cosmological argument asks one of humanity’s oldest questions. Why do things exist? It has some strengths such as intuitive appeal, explanatory ambition, philosophical depth, while its weakness include questions about causality, special pleading, and uncertainty about what a “first cause” actually means. All and all, the cosmological argument adds to the mysteriousness of existence.
And even the criticisms often inherit their own philosophical problems.
In the end, the cosmological argument may reveal less about certainty…
and more about how mysterious existence itself truly is.
See Also:
How Science and Genesis Talk Past One Another
Further Reading (Affiliate Links)
Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser
The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William L. Craig
Reasonable Faith by William L. Craig
Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics by Aristotle
Arguing About Gods by Graham Oppy
Is there A God by Richard Swinburne
Support Me On Patreon
Join My Newsletter on the right
Return to Theology