Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
1
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
for the existence of God
There are many types of Cosmological argument, but it is better to concentrate on a small number of
them and to probe their intricacies rather than to be content with general summaries. They all share
many features in common – in particular, they argue from the world to God and are thus a posteriori. In
the Timaeus, Plato uses a Cosmological argument to arrive at the Demiurge, but it is Aristotle's
argument that has had most influence because it was used by St.Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle argued to
an unmoved mover. This unmoved mover was not a personal God like the Christian God, and it had no
religious significance – rather, it should be seen as the ultimate cause of the Cosmos. Plotinus, in the
third century, modified Plato's argument, although again did not arrive at the Christian God. Plotinus'
God created the world from himself (and not from nothing) by a necessary unfolding of himself - God
had no choice. Plotinus' God was also beyond all description and NEEDED to create in order to become
conscious (Process theology draws on this view).
The Islamic and Jewish philosophers tended to be in advance of Christian philosophers in the early
middle ages. Alfarabi and Avicenna put forward distinctive proofs, including the significant KALAM
argument. The Jewish thinker Maimonides put forward an argument which led to a God similar to that
of Aquinas - he claimed that the ‘I AM’ of the Old Testament has absolute existence, and that He alone
exists necessarily and absolutely.
AQUINAS' ARGUMENT
===================
Aquinas' Five Ways are the cornerstone of Catholic Natural Theology because they claim to show that
language about God successfully refers. However, Aquinas was not creating new arguments but using old
ones; for example, Aquinas' Fifth Way owed much to Plato's argument in the Timaeus. In the Five Ways,
Aquinas argues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FROM MOTION
FROM EFFICIENT CAUSES
FROM CONTINGENCY AND NECESSITY
FROM GRADES OF PERFECTION IN THINGS, and
FROM DESIGN.
It is not certain that Aquinas intended his arguments to establish the existence of God independent of
faith. Lubor Velecky's book1, argues that Aquinas did not intend the arguments as proofs – rather, he
wished to show existing believers that it was rational to believe in God; he was not trying to convince
atheists by philosophic argument. Velecky points out that Aquinas was already a firm believer, and wrote
for a world which accepted Aristotelian categories - he would never have expected the arguments
(which he treats very briefly) to have had the weight they have subsequently been given. However, it is
not necessarily the case that Velecky is right; it may well be held that Aquinas DID intend to produce
proofs and, indeed, that his whole system depends on their success.
The most interesting of Aquinas’ Five Ways is probably the third - the argument from contingency. My
summary of it is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Everything can 'be' or 'not be'
If this is so, given infinite time, at some time everything would not be
If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it
Therefore something must necessarily exist (NOTE MOST CAREFULLY that this is not God)
Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused
The series of necessary things cannot go on to infinity as there would then be no explanation for
the series
7. Therefore there must be some Being 'having of itself its own necessity'
8. This is what everyone calls God.
It is important to note that the overall aim of Aquinas' arguments is not to move back in a temporal
sequence – rather, they seek to establish DEPENDENCE, the dependence of the world on God now.
Aquinas believed that there was no way of establishing that the Universe had a beginning in time - this
1
‘Aquinas’ Five Arguments in the Summa Theologiae 1a, 2, 3 Kos Pharos Publishing, The Netherlends, 1994
2
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
was a revealed doctrine. He did, however, believe that his arguments established the need for the world
to be DEPENDENT on God.
Aquinas' arguments arrive at 'That which is necessary to explain the Universe' or that which is
necessary to explain motion, causation or contingency. We do not know what God is, but whatever God is,
God is that which is necessary to explain the Universe's existence. There is a jump, however, from
whatever this is, to describing it as God. THIS GAVE RISE TO PASCAL'S QUOTE - ‘The God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - not the God of the philosophers’. Aquinas ends his proofs by saying 'This is
what everyone calls God', but this can be challenged. Aquinas’ Prime Mover appears radically different
from the God of most Christians. If we said that God was 'whatever sustains the universe in existence',
we would be somewhere near to what Aquinas was saying - but this 'whatever' may be some way from
Yahweh.
It is important to recognize that Aquinas ends up with God as de re necessary - necessary in and of
himself and cause of himself. This is NOT meant to be the same as de dicto necessity (logical necessity,
based on the way words are used - for instance 'All spinsters are female’) which applies in the
Ontological argument.
It is necessary to be clear on the difference between de re and de dicto necessity. The Ontological
argument starts with de dicto necessity2 and attempts to arrive at de re necessity3. The de re
necessary God is wholly simple. The crux of the notion of Divine simplicity is the identity of essence and
existence in God - God is not something that just happens to exist, God’s essence includes existence.
God cannot be a material being because God:
‘...cannot have any intrinsic accidental properties: cannot, therefore, change in any way; and cannot be
an individual of any given species or genus. Hence an absolutely necessary being does not have a nature
in any straightforward sense at all’.4
WILLIAM OF OCKHAM (1290 -1350) raised at least three problems which go to the heart of the
Cosmological argument:
1)
Ockham challenged Aquinas' view that an infinite series was impossible. He maintained that
causes could be ORIGINATING CAUSES and not CONSERVING CAUSES - in other words, one
cause could bring something else into existence but not then have to conserve its existence. A
mother is responsible for bringing a baby into the world but not for retaining the baby in
existence once it has grown. This is important as Aquinas wishes to establish that the world
depends on God NOW; God did not just create the universe and then leave (Aquinas is not a
deist).
2)
Ockham queried whether there was any necessary link between cause and effect. This was the
same point which was made by Hume centuries later - the Cosmological argument depends on
there being a necessary link between cause and effect. On the face of it, this seems a
reasonable link to make, except that some scientists today claim that there are uncaused causes
- that certain fundamental particles come into existence without any explanation. One problem
with this view is whether it is a true statement, or simply a reflection of our present ignorance.
3)
Ockham did not think it possible to prove that there was only one God, nor that the most
perfect possible being existed. There is a distinction between two possibilities. Either God is:
i)
The most perfect being that actually exists. In this case, there clearly is such a being
(whatever it may be), but this does not mean it is the Christian God. Or
2
‘De dicto’ means ‘of words’ – so this necessity is a necessity based on how words are used. E.g. ‘Spinsters are female’ is
necessarily true because of the way the word spinster is used.
3
‘De re’ means ‘of things’ – so this necessity is a necessity based on the nature of a thing – thus God is held to be de re
necessary because God’s nature is to exist, God cannot not exist.
4
G. Hughes, The Nature of God, p. 37 Routledge 1995
3
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
ii)
The most perfect being that could possibly exist. In this case, however, there is no way
of showing that this POSSIBLE being is also an actual being.
Christians maintain that God is the most perfect possible being. Ockham's claim is that the most that
the Cosmological argument can establish is the most perfect being that actually exists, and there is no
way of moving from this to showing that God is the most perfect possible being.
It is in this sense that the Cosmological argument is sometimes held to depend on the Ontological, as
the Ontological argument starts from the definition that God is the most perfect possible being.
Ockham's point might be re-stated by claiming that this position is needed by Christianity but cannot
be established by the Cosmological argument.
Aquinas considered that God's existence cannot be known to be necessary by understanding God's
nature, as human beings cannot know this nature. However, he considered that if we COULD know this
nature (in the way that God does) THEN God's existence would be seen to be necessary. Because of our
lack of knowledge of God's nature, Aquinas rejects the ontological argument and all his arguments move
from features of the universe to God.
Ockham's approach to Theology is distinctive and important. He often differed from Aquinas, and his
arguments are frequently strong. His position deserves greater attention than it tends to be given! The
same, incidentally, applies to the philosophy of Bonaventure and Duns Scotus.
LEIBNIZ (1646 - 1716)
====================
The best known expression of Leibniz' argument is based on the BOOK OF THE ELEMENTS OF
GEOMETRY:
“Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy always having been
written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present
book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of
the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal you will suppose nothing but a succession of
states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason."
Leibniz often uses the word ‘reason’ but it is clear that this effectively means ‘cause’. – for instance he
quotes the example of Archimedes’ balance which is held in equal balance unless there is a reason (i.e.
cause) why one side should be weighed down. He argues for the existence of ‘the ultimate reason of
things’ which he takes to mean the ultimate cause of things. Effectively he wishes to maintain that
everything (including the universe itself) must have a reason or cause for its existence and this must
mean there is an ultimate, uncaused cause – which he takes to be God.
Leibniz considered that there must be a complete or sufficient explanation, and therefore the book (in
the example above), like the world, must have had a first cause. Geisler and Corduan 5 summarise
Leibniz' argument as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The world we see is changing
Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence
There is a sufficient reason for everything either within itself or outside itself
Therefore there must be a cause beyond itself for its existence
Either this cause is itself caused or is its own sufficient reason
There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because this will never provide a sufficient reason
Therefore there must be a first Cause of the world which has no reason beyond itself but is its own
sufficient reason.
The key to this argument is the PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON, which Leibniz thought to be
self-evidently true. In practice, people are normally content with proximate reasons - reasons that
satisfy. Thus the reason these notes are written is to make philosophic issues clearer to students. One
5
‘Philosophy of Religion’ Baker Book House 1988
4
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
might ask further questions such as why I bother since no-one reads them, whether this is the best way
of helping students, or even why the students are studying Philosophy of Religion at all, but most people
would not consider that there has to be an ultimate explanation of my action in order for the
explanation to make sense. It is the assertion of an ultimate explanation that the Principle of Sufficient
Reason maintains.
Kai Neilsen says that ‘If a series were literally infinite, there would be no need for there to be a first
cause to get the causal order started, for there would always be a causal order since an infinite series
can have no first member’6. However even if a series existed eternally, then it could still be argued that
God is needed to sustain the series – which brings the discussion back to whether the whole causal
series is simply a brute fact or requires God to explain it.
Mackie7 maintains that Leibniz’ argument can be challenged in two ways:
1.
Firstly by asking ‘How do we know everything must have a sufficient reason?’ Leibniz asserts
that this is the case but does not actually provide any compelling argument,
2.
Secondly, ‘How can there be a necessary being, one that contains its own sufficient reason?’
Leibniz does not have any compelling reason to show why the existence of such a being is
necessary.
HUME'S CRITICISMS8
==================
Hume offers a sustained attack on the Cosmological arguments, and his arguments have since been
developed and elaborated:
1.
Like causes resemble like effects. The most that can be derived from finite effects will be
finite causes. All that it is reasonable to do is to propose a cause adequate to explain the
effect, and this will be a finite cause. Hume asks why one should not postulate male and female
gods who are born and die, as the closer the analogy between causes in the world and causes of
the world as a whole the closer should be the resemblance between us as agents who cause
things and God.
2.
We have no experience of universes being made. Nothing counts for or against the hypothesis
about the origin of everything. Swinburne (The Existence of God) rejects this view as he argues
that everything is unique under some description - although Hume's point is that we know about
causes within the universe, and this does not entitle us to move to a cause of the universe as a
whole. The essence of this point can be expressed by saying that it is one thing to say that
every human being has a mother, but that one cannot move from this to say that there is a
mother for the whole human race.
3.
No proposition about existence can be logically necessary. The opposite of any statement about
existence is always perfectly possible. This objection may rest on a confusion, as Aquinas does
not claim that God's existence is logically necessary - instead he claims that the existence of
God is necessary GIVEN motion, cause, contingency, etc.. God is not logically necessary - God is
de re necessary, necessary in and of himself.
4.
The words 'necessary being' have no consistent meaning. Any being claimed to exist may or may
not exist. Hume stated this by saying that ‘All existential propositions are synthetic’.
5.
If 'necessary being' means only 'imperishable being', then the universe itself may be necessary.
This is similar to Russell's point in his debate with Copleston. IF one accepts (and Russell did
not) that things in the world are contingent, why should not the Universe as a whole be
necessary? We know - from Einstein's principle of the conservation of matter - that matter and
6
Quoted in Brian Davies ‘An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion’ p. 90
7
J.L Mackie ‘The Miracle of Theism’ The Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982, p. 82
8
David Hume ‘Dialogues concerning Natural Religion’ first published 1779
5
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
energy remain constant, so why should matter and energy not be the constants that are
necessary to explain the contingency of everything else?
6.
An infinite series is possible. If this is true, then there need be no sufficient reason and no end
to the regress of justification.
7.
There is no way of establishing the principle of causality (see discussion of this point under
Ockham above).
KANT's CRITICISMS
==================
Kant's key criticism (although there are a number) is based on the claim that NO EXISTENTIAL
STATEMENT CAN BE NECESSARY. Necessity only applies to thought; it cannot apply to being. Kant is,
therefore, rejecting the idea of God as de re necessary. Brian Davies says that as God is not a
something, we should not ask what caused God. But this is to put God into a special category (see Lee
below), which Kant effectively rejects.
Kant maintained that genuine knowledge and reasoning can only be about objects of possible experience
and since we cannot experience the object which is God, we cannot reason our way to Him. You cannot
move from physical premises to a metaphysical conclusion. We can, in other words, know about the
PHENOMENA but not the NOUMENA.
MARTIN LEE9
============
Martin Lee's point is that either God is something or God is nothing. If God is something we can ask
what caused God, whilst if God is nothing God cannot be an explanation for the universe. Aquinas wants
to deny this distinction. Aquinas maintains that God is neither something nor nothing - God is in God's
own category. Brian Davies makes the same point, and it is central to the cosmological argument. There
are various possible definitions of the Universe, thus:


DAVIES - All existing things
COPLESTON - The real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects.
Lee maintains that if the world is the aggregate of objects, then the explanation of the existence of
the world is the aggregate of the explanations of individual objects. So the cause of a chair is the
carpenter, plus materials and tools. If the totality is no more than the aggregate, then once one has
explained the existence of each item in the aggregate, there is no more to explain. IF the world is more
than the aggregate then we are into the design argument. So Lee maintains that REVELATION and not
Natural Theology tells us that the world was created and dependent.
One of the crucial moves in the Cosmological argument is whether it is a legitimate move on the part of
Aquinas to put God into a category of God's own - neither something nor nothing. Lee maintains that it is
not but, perhaps, his argument rests on the idea that God must be in some sense an object in the
Universe rather than in a category of God's own. The latter view appears attractive, but critics could
maintain that by putting God into a self-explanatory, unique category one is making an unjustified
assumption which could be regarded as a somewhat ad hoc hypothesis. WHY POSTULATE THIS
SPECIAL CATEGORY?
DOES THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT REST ON A MISTAKE?
=====================================================
Perhaps the whole idea of the Cosmological argument is misconceived; some philosophers have taken this
view. 'I believe in God' may not work according to the same logic as saying 'I believe in an undiscovered
planet between earth and Mars'. Rush Rhees maintains this view. He says:
“If you tried to explain to someone who had no idea of religion that there was a first cause, you
could be arguing as follows:
9
‘Something or Nothing’ in The Heythrop Journal 1986
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
6
There must be a first cause, a Something - and this something is more powerful, whatever that
means, than anything else so you would not have been conceived or born but for the operation of
Something, and Something might wipe everything out of existence at any time.
Would THAT give us any idea of the wonder and glory of God? Surely he would reply: “What a
frightful idea! Like a Frankenstein without limit so that you cannot escape it - the most ghastly
nightmare”. If my chief reason for worshipping God had to be a belief that a super-Frankenstein
would blast me to Hell if I did not, then I hope I should have the decency to tell this being who is named Almighty God - to go ahead and blast.
Is the reason for worshipping God rather than the Devil that God is stronger than the Devil?
“GOD WILL GET YOU IN THE END AND THEN YOU WILL BE FOR IT. THINK OF THE
FUTURE BOY, AND DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR CHANCES.” What a creeping, vile sort of
thing this religion would be.’
God, Rush Rhees maintains, does not have MORE power than the Devil, God has a different sort of
power. Both D.Z. Phillips and R.W. Hepburn consider, with Tillich, that:
‘The Cosmological Argument degrades God to the level of the world.’
Tillich says:
‘The arguments for the existence of God are neither arguments nor are they proofs of the
existence of God, they are expressions of the Question of God which is implied by human
finitude.’
D. Z. Phillips, in a chapter 'From world to God' in his book Faith and Philosophic Enquiry, sees the
Cosmological argument as an attempt to explain the world. In Dostoyevsky’sThe Brothers Karamazov,
Dimitri asks why a baby is crying - he is not interested in the circumstances but in the larger question.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORLD AND THE MEANING OF LIFE ARE THE
SAME. The meaning of life and of the world is, Phillips maintains, to be found WITHIN the Universe
and not outside it. Phillips maintains that God's love is 'other than' the world as it means dying to the
world's way of looking at things. So the man who loves God cannot be harmed by any of the world's
suffering or evils. This is what Jesus meant when he said that perfect love casts out fear or when he
talked of the peace that only he could give, or what Socrates meant when he said that 'The Good man
cannot be harmed’.
Phillips, however, argues for a non-realist understanding of God's existence (see my book, The Puzzle of
God), so he would naturally reject the enterprise of which the Cosmological argument forms part.
Whether he is right or not is a wider issue.
FINALLY
========
At the end of the day, the key issue is possibly whether the world as a brute fact (Bertrand Russell) is
more self-explanatory than God as the cause of the Universe. The ‘Big Bang’ theory points to the idea
that the universe had a beginning and that space and time came into existence with the Universe - this
is similar to the position which supporters of the Cosmological argument seek to establish. It also points
to a God who is timeless and spaceless, since time and space would be dependent on the created
Universe. However, whether the universe is the ultimate inexplicable fact, or whether God is the
ultimate explanation, is what the argument is all about and this is not easy to establish. Believers in God
may find the argument persuasive; others may be less convinced.
Hick and Swinburne are examples of philosophers who take different views on this and it is essential, if
the argument is to succeed, to show why God is the better ultimate explanation. Swinburne (The
Existence of God10) maintains that God is a SIMPLER explanation than the brute fact of the universe
10
Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991
7
Dialogue Education – Cosmological Argument
because God provides a personal explanation - but this is debatable. Aquinas certainly considered that
God was metaphysically simple (this is the defining characteristic of the Thomist God from which other
features such as God's timelessness, immutability, spacelessness, bodilessness, etc. are derived), but
this is VERY different from saying that God provides a simple explanation. Also, it is all very well saying
that God is personal, but it is far from clear what ‘personal’ means when applied to the wholly simple God
- it certainly cannot be understood univocally (see The Puzzle of God 11for a discussion on analogy and
metaphor in religious language) since God is not ‘personal’ in the same sense as a human being is personal.
Dr. Peter Vardy
Vice-Principal
Heythrop College
University of London
11
‘The Puzzle of God’ Harper Collins 1990 by Peter Vardy