The Cause for the Cosmological

Dion Kaszas, one of our co-founders - is currently enrolled at university studying to get his philsophy degree and has written a paper for one of his classes presenting his case for "The Cosmological Argument". If you are one of the many who enjoy philosophy, especially from a theological perspective or someone who is just curious, this paper promises high demand on the grey matter.

For those who may not be familiar with that, it is used in our FAQ as a strong non-biblical source for the existence of God. The most interesting part about the cosmological perspective is that a case is made that those against the idea of God's existence are using arguments that actually prove his existence. Furthermore, it is suggested that it may not be intellectually honest (or in Dion's words, "the proverbial sucker punch") to use "reason and science" to stand up for athiesm when in the cosmological argument it shows that science and reason actually prove God's existence. He writes:

Is Inference Intelligible?

Throughout human history there have been arguments for the existence of a higher power, or God. These have taken many forms from, appeals to emotion, blind faith in revelation of a deity; some have even offered a reasoned belief, based on evidence. This paper is concerned with the latter, and the specific form of argumentation we are going to look at is the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. This argument can be traced back to the Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, but we will be looking at it from the thinking of the Christian Apologist Thomas Aquinas and its re-formulations in the Christian tradition. Opponents have ruled it insufficient to warrant belief in any type of God, let alone the theistic God.

Thomas Aquinas offered five proofs for God, the first four are cosmological, the fifth is not. In these four he argued for an Unmoved Mover, an Uncaused Cause, a Necessary First Being, and a Perfect Being. Although all these have a different beginning point they all share a common form, which argues from a state of existence or being to a first cause. Aquinas says that it "Is based on the nature of causation. In the observable world causes are found to be ordered in series; we never observe, nor ever could, something causing itself, for this would mean it proceeded itself, and this is not possible. Such a series of causes must however stop somewhere (21)." The basis of all cosmological arguments has to do with the concept of causation, and that since there is a universe as opposed to there being nothing, it needs to be explained by something which caused it to exist.

We now move from Aquinas and his Unmoved Mover to Samuel Clarke and his Self-existent being. Clarke asserts that "Either there has always existed one unchangeable and independent being, from which all other beings that are or ever were in the universe, have received their originality; or else there has been an infinite succession of changeable and dependant beings, produced one from another in an endless progression, without any original cause at all…And consequently there must on the contrary, of necessity have existed from eternity, some one immutable and independent being (23)." There is one primary difference in Clarke’s re-formulation of the CA (Cosmological argument) it is that he argues for a cause for all things that exist and are dependant, as opposed to Aquinas arguing for an explanation for a given particular dependant thing. On the one hand we have a first cause for a series of dependent beings and on the other we have a cause for the fact that there are dependent beings at all.

William Rowe a critic of the Cosmological Argument outlines Clarke’s position in, “Reason and Responsibility” as such, “Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependant being or a self existent being. Not every being can be a dependent being. Therefore, there exists a self-existent being” (25). He goes on to make a further distinction with what has become known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He states it by saying, “We may state PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason), therefore, as the principle that there must be an explanation (a) of existence of any being, and (b) of any positive fact whatever.” (26). This principle is put forth here because it is the backbone of the modern versions of the Cosmological Argument.

There are many challenges that are set forth, most of them seem to be troublesome at first glance but in the end miss the point, and in result they are ineffective. We will be dealing with the most effective line of reasoning against the CA. This challenge has to do with the PSR as the basis for the two premises that support the conclusion of a Self-existent being (God). Further distinctions have to be made when it comes to the first premise of the CA. It, as stated, above says that, “Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependant being or a self existent being.” Rowe argues that it fails to give us all the options. It says that we can have either, things that are explained by something else, or things that are explained in and of themselves. But leaves out things that may have no explanation at all, he questions, “What’s wrong with admitting that the fact that there are and have always been dependent beings as a brute fact, a fact having no explanation whatever?” (Rowe 28)

The CA says that there are no brute facts, that every being needs explanation either as a dependent being or a self-existent being according to part (a) of the PSR. The problem can be put this way, by saying that there is an infinite series of A's, each being preceded by another A, which gives an explanation for every A that has ever existed. Aquinas would argue that no, the series cannot go on infinitely but must stop somewere, but he has no basis for such a claim because it is not logically contradictory to conceive of it being so and every A is accounted for or is explained by the A that came before it. This is why Clarke’s distinction is so ingenuous; it is stated as the second premise, “Not every being can be a dependent being.” This is where the part (b) of the PSR comes into play, with the above example of As there is an explanation of every particular A but not an explanation for the positive fact of the existence of beings in general.

The most devastating criticism, “asks what is wrong with admitting that the universe contains such a brute, unintelligible fact” (Rowe 30). Thus calling into question the PSR, it asks why we should accept that every thing needs an explanation whether dependent being or positive fact? Rowe finishes confidently with,"Our study of the…Cosmological Argument has led us to the fundamental principle on which its premises rest, the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Since we do not seem to know that PSR is true we cannot reasonably claim to know that the premises of the Cosmological Argument are true (31).With this basic outline of the CA and its opponent’s most championed attack against it we turn to the task of defending it. For Rowe to make such a claim as to brute facts, there would actually have to be proof of such a thing - to really have the basis for rejecting the PSR. These things are said to happen without reason or explanation, and could not ever be explained. The odd thing about brute facts is that they are supposed to be facts that have no explanation. But as soon as we say they have no explanation they all of a sudden have an explanation. They are things that have no explanation that we just gave an explanation for? Self refuting claims?

Rowe has failed to realize even if brute facts are in fact, facts, that is no reason to rule out God. If one grants that brute facts are facts, there could be a God that has always existed alongside the infinite series of As, and all other series that have existed for eternity. So you would have a God that is the reason for the A's. The A's are contingent on God but God is not contingent on the A's both existing infinitely. Some may question whether this is a God of Creation and Richard Taylor in his paper “The Cosmological Argument: A Defense” says that, "People tend to think that creation…means creation in time, from which it of course logically follows that if the world had no beginning in time, then it cannot be the creation of God. This, however, is erroneous, for creation means essentially dependence... If one thing is the creation of another, then it depends for its existence on that other, and this is perfectly consistent with saying that both are eternal, that neither ever came into being, and hence, that neither was ever created at any point of time (4). With this he continues with an analogy that may clear things up, "Consider, then, a flame that is casting beams of light. Now there seems to be a clear sense in which the beams of light are dependent for their existence upon the flame, which is their source, while the flame, on the other hand, is not similarly dependent for its existence upon them. The beams of light arise from the flame, but the flame does not arise from them. In this sense, they are the creation of the flame; they derive their existence from it. And none of this has any reference to time; the relationship of dependence in such a case would not be altered in the slightest if we supposed that the flame, and with it the beams of light, had always existed. (4)The believer could also turn this criticism around and say,"Ok if brute facts are an option then God is a brute fact and does not need an explanation," which might get this believer laughed out of the classroom, why should it be allowed for the unbeliever, when it is not allowed for the believer? Where is the consistency? Furthermore if all brute facts have no explanation are we not appealing to mystery and faith? Oh no not faith!When the unbeliever asserts that there is no God, they are breaking down intelligence, when it comes to anything philosophically speaking, they have no basis for inference, or induction or no way to explain causation itself, which then puts an impossible blockade in the skeptics sense experience, thus ruling out empiricism as a valid way of knowing anything. By appealing to brute facts, the critic has just destroyed all possibility of explaining anything rationally.Greg Bahnsen a prominent Christian apologist in his book “Van Til’s Apologetic” writes that,"We maintain that we can rationally prove God’s existence from causation. We can show the unbeliever that causal reasoning or the “inductive principle” is not only taken for granted by all men, but is rationally necessary for our scientific inferences, our use of language, and our practical experience." (618) You can see that he is saying not only is God’s existence provable but is necessary for any rational inquiry to happen. Without God - Clarke's Self-Existent Being - the critic would have no basis for his skepticism, no capacity to even make the claim that Rowe does above, that, “we cannot reasonably claim to know that the premises of the Cosmological Argument are true.” Rowe will have in his skepticism thrown his ability to argue intelligently out with his insistence on God’s non-existence. By stepping into the shoes of the critic we will see that intelligibility will be made of no effect and that the only way out is begging the question.

Many unbelieving philosophers have been found wanting when it comes right down to the fact, that without God, causation is not possible. Bertrand Russell is one man who has admitted such in his little Book “The Problems of Philosophy” he comments that, "The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependant upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of our daily life…But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed."(Russell 69) What an admission coming from such a prominent philosopher! He says a page earlier that, “Hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must…forgo all justification of our expectations about the future.” (Russell 68). With this nail in the coffin of the critic it is evident that he has no cogent basis for rational argumentation at all. What right does he have in inferring anything, he has no way of explaining the words he uses, the uniformity of nature within which he operates, or that what he says today is going to mean the same thing tomorrow, as Russell said he must, “forgo all justification of…expectations about the future.” Bahnsen says that, “The unbelieving worldview cannot provide a cogent reason for what we necessarily assume in all our reasoning. Thus, it is entirely unreasonable not to believe in God” (619).

The truth of the CA is in the fact that without God the principle of causation is meaningless along with all argumentation and logical inference. When the question is posed by the critic why can’t there just exist brute facts? He must soon realize he has just put himself out of the realm of inquiry; he is no longer engaging in intellectual pursuits, no longer making an argument but has reduced himself to subjectivism. He is refusing to play the game, the proverbial sucker punch, if he feels like standing and fighting then that’s what he should do. His atheistic presupposition has shown itself, he is crossing his arms and arbitrarily saying, "This is where I stand regardless of your argument, there is just no way, that, it is that way." He offers no argument for his position except a holding on to the dangling rope that has been shown to hang him intellectually. This short essay poses questions concerning brute facts and a contingent universe, which have to be dealt with to show that one, brute facts are even possible, and two, that even if they are truly reasonable to believe in, why God could not exist alongside these brute facts. Thirdly an explanation needs to be given as to why the playground approach is reasonable if we are engaging in intelligent dialogue. If one doesn't want to argue then he can cross his arms and stamp his feet on the playground but what he has just given for a defense is at the very least, arbitrary and subjective, neither being rational. The PSR stands until these objections have been adequately answered, leaving the Cosmological Argument for the existence for God unscathed and still standing strong. God necessarily exists!

*Works Cited - Aquinas, Saint Thomas. “The Five Ways, from Summa Theologica.” Reason and Responsibility: Reading in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. 12th ed. Eds. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth 2005. 21-22.Bahnsen, Greg. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis.Reason and Responsibility: Reading in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. 12th ed. Eds. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth 2005. 22-23Rowe, William L. “The Cosmological Argument.” Reason and Responsibility: Reading in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. 12th ed. Eds. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth 2005. 23-32.Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. 1959.Taylor, Richard. “The Cosmological Argument: A Defense” 1-7. University of California, San Diego. October 24, 2006 <mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf>. Phillpsburg: P & R Publishing. 1998.Clarke, Samuel. “A Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument.”