Various arguments over the years have been penned for the existence of God. Some arguments show the belief in the existence of God as plausible, while others seek to portray God’s existence as necessary. These arguments are all useful and reinforcing of each other for the cumulative case for the existence of the Christian God of the Bible. They are broken up into several categories, including teleological, ontological,transcendental, moral, experience, and cosmological.
“Cosmological arguments have a common structure: they begin with some kind of contingent or dependent beings and then argue to a noncontingent, uncaused Being – God.” This type of argument is further categorized, and it is specifically the Kalam Cosmological Argument which will be the focus of this essay. The argument will be explored in depth by the examination of each premise, the conclusion, and then the various objections will be dealt with accordingly. It is the aim of this essay to create a strong case for theism by presenting the belief in an uncaused, timeless, omnipotent, personal being as plausible.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be laid out in a deductive form. This type of argument reasons from more general statements to the logical conclusion that follows. It is also a modus pollens argument which affirms the consequent: if P, therefore Q. P, therefore Q. The conclusion necessarily follows. Due to its form, the only way to attack this type ofargument is to attack one or more of the premises by provingthem as false. All that is needed for a premise to be proved false is for one counter example to be shown. A counter example is an example which exhibits as true that which the premise asserts is false. For example, take the premise all dogs are blue. This statement asserts a truth claim which would be proven false if at least one dog was not in fact blue. One dog of any other color, perhaps brown, would serve as a counter example.
Each premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument will be presented, explained, and defended against objections. It is crucial to note that while the aim of this argument is to show belief in a cause of the universe as plausible, it is not meant to lead to the God of Christian theism when used isolated from other arguments. Rather, it is meant to serve as another piece to the overall cumulative case for God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
P2. The universe began to exist
C. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
Premise one
Premise one states that: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. One of the well-known contemporary philosophers for articulating this argument is William Lane Craig, however he “takes the first premise to be a fairly noncontroversial concept: ex nihilo nihil fit (‘out of nothing, nothing comes’).” Though Craig does not deal with it, and perhaps less known, there is a challenge to this premise. It relies on the ability to imagine something popping into existence uncaused, and therefore, because we can imagine it, it is theoretically possible.
In response to this challenge, Douglas Groothuis has advised that “all we need for a legitimate and successful argument form is that the premise be more likely than its denial.” If this is the case, then even though it is in fact imaginable for something to pop into existence uncaused, this“says little or nothing about the ontological possibility of thingsmaterializing out of nothing…the mere ability to picture something certainly fails to establish its possibility or likelihood.” Something popping into existence out of nothing, would attribute some kind of properties to the nothingness. But this cannot be done, for the concept of nothing would have to be defined as lacking any properties, not simply some other version of a thing. This seeming challenge commits a fallacy of “ontologizing of nothingness,” and therefore does not actuallychallenge to this argument.
An accusation could be made that premise one simply begs the question of “what caused the cause?” An infinite regress of causes (cause1 was caused by cause 2, cause 2 was caused by cause 3, cause 3 was caused by cause 4, etc.) would get us nowhere so it must be avoided, but how? In order to escape this threat, there would have to be an ultimate uncaused cause for allother causes which would have to be eternal. The eternal nature of this cause would stop the regress because it would not entail a cause outside of itself.
Before this case can be fully made, we must provide adequate reason for why an infinite regress must be avoided.The reason lies in the potential of encountering the dilemma ofthe traversing an actual infinite. This is not only impossible, but would it make the action of ever arriving at the present impossible. This will be examined below.
First, we must recognize a crucial distinction whichWilliam Craig makes, between potential and actual infinites. “A potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there…An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite.”Upon this distinction it can be concluded that actual infinites cannot ever be arrived at by successive addition of finite parts.Consider the concept of a whole being equal to the sum of its parts. If a portion of parts was removed from an infinite number of parts, would the whole be less? It could not, because infinity equals infinity. Neither can infinity ever be arrived at by simply adding more, because with an infinite number of finite parts, there would always be more to add to the whole. This concept is referred to as the traversing of an actual infinite. It is impossible.
Consider the example of numbers. There is a potentialinfinite amount of numbers. This infinite amount of numbers has no beginning, it continues indefinitely in either direction. Theconcept of infinity is not something that can ever be arrived at by simply counting from one number to the next, as if infinity was just another number. It is not simply individual finite numbers which follow in sequence until they eventually reach infinity. Numbers are infinite by definition. It seems thereforethat in theory, actual infinites are not logically prohibited from existing. However, there can be no actual infinites of material objects, nor could actual infinites even have a beginning for they would simply be potential infinites.
It becomes tricky when this concept is applied to thecontext of time. When it was mentioned above that “there would have to be an ultimate uncaused cause for all other causes whichwould have to be eternal,” did that not violate the notion of the impossibility to traverse an actual infinite? If this being existed in eternity past, how did it ever arrive at the present if, as was shown above, an actual infinite cannot be traversed by the succession of finite moments? This is only a dilemma if an eternal existence is bound to mean existing in eternity past. However, could eternity not simply mean without beginning?Let me explain: If time had not been yet been created, then the actual infinitude of the uncaused cause’s existence would be possible because it would not be formed by the successive addition of finite moments. What’s more, the concept of past would be meaningless as a time referent.
Thus far we have an eternal, uncaused, timeless cause of the universe. We can add that this cause must also be a personalbeing because the will to cause anything else to exist must be found from within the cause itself. If this cause is in fact uncaused, than at one time it existed alone and would therefore have to find the will within itself to cause the universe. This ability to will anything entails personhood, for how could an impersonal thing will anything? As Craig has stated in his conclusion of the argument, “the only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time.”
Premise two
Premise two states that the universe began to exist. Based on the above argument demonstrating the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite, Craig advises that “if the universe did not begin to exist a finite time ago, then the present moment could never arrive. But obviously, it has arrived. Therefore, we know that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist.”
Though Craig’s argument is sound, it has still been challenged. David Hume has proposed that these necessary characteristics of the necessary cause of the universe may just be the universe itself. That is, potentially the universe is uncaused, eternal, timeless and personal. He questions “may not the material universe be the necessary existent being?” This is a clever challenge from Hume, but upon reflection it does not seem to work. As was stated above, all this is required to prove a proposition is false is to provide one counter example. With that said, if the uncaused cause of the universe is necessarily eternal, and the universe cannot possibly be eternal, then the needed counterexample for Hume’s proposition to fail will be provided through this proof.
In 1929, Edward Hubble showed that galaxies were moving away from each other. “As time proceeds, the distances separating the galaxies become greater.”Even if this does not show us that the universe has always been expanding, it shows us that it is expanding now. What’s more, as Groothuis has stated, “if the universe were eternal and its amount of energy finite, it would have reached heat death by now.” It obviously has not, but Paul Davies has concluded that it eventually will.“The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.” In agreement, Craig has added that “eventually all the matter in the dark, cold, ever-expanding universe will be reduced to an ultra-thin gas of elementary particles and radiation.”
All of these lines of evidence contribute to what is known as the Big Bang Theory. “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have creation ex nihilo.” This nothing that is referred to is “not a subject that can have properties, but is rather the absence of all properties.”
In addition to the negative lines of evidence against an eternal universe, there are also positive lines of evidence for this one-time event known as the Big Bang. Groothuis has reminded us that “At the end of World War II, three scientists calculated that if the universe came into being through a tremendous explosion, this even would have produced intense radiation,” and in 1965 this “cosmic fireball” was discovered by physicist Arno Pernzias and Robert Wilson. In addition, the abundance of helium and hydrogen confirms what would be expected if the big bang occurred and for the formation of life.
The Big Bang theory provides the necessary evidence to show that the universe cannot have existed in eternity past. If that is the case, then it must have had a starting point. Thus the challenge given by Hume is defeated and the second premise is defended. Therefore, as premise one and premise two have both been explained and defended, the conclusion necessarily follows: the universe has a cause of its existence.
Conclusion
“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”Though this does not necessary get us the God of the Bible, it does create a strong case for theism. Used properly and as a part of cumulative case apologetics, it can serve for a fruitful witness. It must be kept in mind that the reference range of this argument is only for an uncaused, timeless, omnipotent, andpersonal being.
“On the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence… This cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time.”
While the absence of this cause is not possible per the argument above, Craig reveals one more disclaimer which relies on a distinction between a logical impossibility and a factual impossibility. He makes the distinction by illustrating that “there is no logical impossibility in something’s coming to exist without a cause, but such a circumstance may well be really or metaphysically impossible.” The absence of God is actually nota logically impossibility, simply because God can be conceived to not exist. However, given the universe as contingent, the absence of God is factually impossibility. This has been demonstrated above by the need for the universe to have a cause.God is in fact only necessary if “something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent beings.”
With a working knowledge of the Kalam Cosmological argument, one is armed with a starting point for conversing with the unbeliever. Though this argument taken alone with not necessarily bring people to the foot of the cross, it gets people a few steps closer. Other arguments, such as moral, teleological, transcendental, ontological, and arguments from experience must be studied as well and used in addition to cosmological arguments. Discernment and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s guiding is necessary for knowing when to use these arguments and in what order. We should be armed with prayer when entering into any argument for the existence of the Triune God of the Bible. Being competent in knowing the arguments and how to present them does not hinder the Spirit, but rather is an opportunity for the Spirit to work on the unbelievers heart, as all as an opportunity to show its power through anointing the apologist with patience, gentleness, and guidance.
Bibliography
Leibniz, G.W. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin ofEvil, trans. E.M. Huggard. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.
Vilenkin, Alex. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill and Wang,2007.
Davies, Paul. “The Big Bang – and Before,” The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture Series, ThomasAquinas College, Santa Paula, California, March 2002.
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947.
Sweis, Khaldoun A. and Chad V. Meister. Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. DownersGrove: InterVaristy, 2011.
Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992.
Barrow, John and Frank Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford Universitypress, 1986.
No comments:
Post a Comment