Cosmological Argument Overview

Overview

• Topic: The Cosmological Argument — attempts to prove God's existence as explanation for why anything exists.
• Main ingredients: a causal principle (e.g., every event has a cause) and a denial of an infinite regress (universe had a beginning or needs a first explanation).
• Two broad families: causation-focused arguments and contingency-focused arguments.
• Typical form: a posteriori reasoning from observed features of the world to a first cause or necessary being.

Cosmological Arguments From Causation

• Focus: efficient causation and the need for a first cause or unmoved mover.
• Two classic Aquinas arguments use Aristotelian efficient causation (sustaining rather than merely temporal).

Aquinas First Way (From Motion)

• Key definitions: “motion” = any change; change is actualization of a potential.
• Structure:
  • Observe change.
  • Change requires a mover; movers must be actual and cannot move themselves.
  • If no first mover, no motion now.
  • Therefore a first unmoved mover (pure actuality) exists — call this God.
• Emphasis: ontological priority, not temporal priority.

Aquinas Second Way (From Efficient Causes)

• Structure:
  • We observe efficient causation.
  • Nothing causes itself.
  • There is a logical order of sustaining causes (first cause → intermediate causes → effect).
  • If first cause didn’t exist, effects wouldn’t exist.
  • Therefore a first uncaused sustaining cause exists — call this God.
• Distinction: Aquinas focuses on sustaining (per se) causation rather than temporal (per accidens) causation.

Types Of Efficient Causation

• Temporal (per accidens / in fieri):
  • Horizontal sequence in time; effects can continue independently of prior causes.
  • Example: father → son → grandson as temporally separate causes.
• Sustaining (per se / in esse):
  • Vertical hierarchy where secondary causes derive causal power from a primary cause.
  • Members are ontologically dependent and simultaneous; the first cause provides primary causal power.
  • Example: hand moves stick which moves stone; stick’s causal power depends on the hand.
• Aquinas’s point: sustaining series require an ontologically first cause even if the series is temporally infinite.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Temporal Causation)

• Modern proponent: William Lane Craig (revives Islamic/Kalam tradition).
• Structure:
  • P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  • P2: The universe began to exist (infinite regress impossible).
  • C: Therefore the universe has a cause.
• Further claims:
  • Cause must be outside space-time, timeless, non-spatial, powerful enough to create ex nihilo, and likely personal.
• Justifications:
  • P1: metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing.
  • P2: argued a priori (rejecting actual infinities) and a posteriori (Big Bang cosmology).

Im/possibility Of An Infinite Regress

• Craig rejects actual infinities in reality (paradoxes like Hilbert’s Hotel).
• Objections:
  • Cantor’s mathematics shows infinite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence with subsets (not absurd).
  • Scientific models allow possible eternal or cyclic universes (inflation, cyclic models).
  • Philosophers (Hume, Russell) claim an infinite regress may be logically possible — cannot be ruled out a priori.
• Aquinas and Leibniz reply:
  • Even an infinite temporal series of contingent or secondary causes still requires explanation (primary cause or necessary being).
  • The real problem is an infinite regress of explanation, not necessarily temporal sequence.

Cosmological Arguments From Contingency

• Focus: contingent beings (could fail to exist) require an external explanation.
• Strengths:
  • Seeks a necessary being (cannot cease to exist) — stronger theological implication.
  • Aims for an ultimate explanation, not merely the first cause in time.

Aquinas Third Way (From Contingency)

• Structure:
  • Observe contingent beings.
  • If everything were contingent, there would be a time when nothing existed.
  • If nothing once existed, nothing could begin to exist now.
  • Therefore something must be necessary (has its own necessity) — call this God.
• Clarification: the argument assumes denial of an infinite regress of contingent beings, or else appeals to impossibility of infinite regress of explanation.

Leibniz’s Principle Of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

• PSR: For any true fact, there is a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise.
• Structure:
  • P1: PSR holds.
  • P2: The existence of a contingent series is a fact requiring explanation.
  • P3: Contingent beings cannot contain the sufficient reason for the whole series.
  • Therefore the sufficient reason must be a necessary being (God).
• Leibniz: even an infinite contingent series needs a sufficient reason; only a necessary being can stop the infinite deferral of explanation.

Key Terms And Definitions

• Contingent being: something that can possibly not exist.
• Necessary being: something that exists of itself and cannot not exist (Leibniz/Aquinas understanding).
• Per accidens / in fieri (temporal causation): sequential causes over time; effects can persist independent of prior causes.
• Per se / in esse (sustaining causation): hierarchical, simultaneous dependence where secondary causes derive causal power from the first cause.
• Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): every fact has an explanation.
• Fallacy of composition: assuming what is true of parts is true of the whole.

Major Objections And Replies

• Objection: Fallacy of composition — parts having explanations doesn’t imply whole needs one.
  • Reply: Aquinas/Leibniz argue series (especially sustaining series) requires an external explanation; PSR addresses wholes.
• Objection: Hume’s critique of the causal principle — not analytically true and not justifiable by experience beyond the universe.
  • Reply: Hume’s critique is strongest against Kalam; Aquinas’s sustaining-cause focus avoids some Humean objections because it addresses secondary causes observed now.
• Objection: Quantum mechanics and modern cosmology suggest uncaused events or universe-from-nothing scenarios (Krauss, inflation).
  • Reply: These scientific possibilities challenge causal premises; defenders argue they do not necessarily undermine sustaining-cause or PSR-based versions.
• Objection: Necessary being might be the universe or necessary matter, not God.
  • Reply: Even if a necessary entity is required, cosmological arguments cannot by themselves prove the necessary being is a theistic God with personhood or moral attributes.
• Objection: Hume on necessary existence — we can conceive of non-existence for any being, so necessary existence is meaningless.
  • Reply: Kripke’s metaphysical necessity distinguishes metaphysical necessity from strict logical necessity; cosmological arguments require metaphysical necessity, not logical.

Evaluation: Strengths

• Grounded in everyday intuitions: causes and explanations motivate the arguments.
• Aquinas’s sustaining-causation approach focuses on ontological dependence, avoiding some criticisms aimed at temporal series.
• Contingency arguments aim for a necessary being, aligning with theological attributes of God.
• PSR gives a single principle that links causation and need for a sufficient explanation.

Evaluation: Weaknesses

• Dependence on controversial principles:
  • Causal principle (everything that begins has a cause) is challenged by Hume, quantum phenomena, and cosmology.
  • PSR is disputed: is it necessarily true or just a heuristic?
• Infinite regress debate unresolved:
  • Mathematical arguments for actual infinities (Cantor) and cosmological models complicate a priori rejections of infinities.
• Fallacy of composition and “series as mental construction” (Hume/Russell) challenge inference from parts to whole.
• Even if a necessary being exists, cosmological arguments struggle to establish the being’s divine attributes (mind, moral nature, particular theistic features).

Action Items / Next Steps For Study

• Compare Aquinas’s sustaining causation with Kalam’s temporal causation; list clear contrasts and implications.
• Read primary sources: Aquinas (Summa Theologica extracts), Leibniz (PSR passages), Hume (Dialogues/Enquiry).
• Study modern scientific objections: basics of Big Bang cosmology, inflation theory, quantum indeterminacy.
• Practice essay: Evaluate whether the cosmological argument successfully establishes a theistic God (focus on PSR and sustaining causation).
• Review recommended further reading (Stanford Encyclopedia entry, Feser, Russell vs Copleston debate) for deeper analysis.