Cosmological Argument for God's Existence Explained

Introduction to the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument can take many forms, but it works from a common basis: since the cosmos (the universe) exists, there must be a God. The argument raises the question of how the mere fact that the universe exists could point to any conclusion other than that something caused it to exist. Two principal versions of this argument are examined here. The first argues that God must exist because He is the Temporal First Cause of the universe. The second argues that God must exist because He is the Ontological First Cause of the universe.

Wainwright states: "It is by no means clear that the logical relations between sense experiences and physical objects are significantly different from the logical relations between mystical or numinous experiences and an object like God. It is thus not clear that some sort of special justification is needed in the one case which is not needed in the other. If a special justification is not needed in the case of sense experience — and it does not seem to be — then it is not needed in the case of mystical experience."

God as the Temporal First Cause

This argument is also called the cosmological argument. Here is a basic formulation:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Scientific and Philosophical Support for a Beginning

The first premise seems indisputably true. All things that begin have something that caused them to begin; things do not simply pop into existence without a cause. This works out rather well for the theist, since God — at least prior to creation — is timeless, at least in relation to our time. Therefore, the universe must have a cause, but God does not.

Wainwright further argues: "The nature of an object should (at least partly) determine the tests for its presence. Given the nature of physical objects, it is reasonable to suppose that genuine experiences of those objects can be confirmed by employing appropriate procedures and obtaining similar experiences, and that non-genuine experiences can be disconfirmed by employing the same procedures and obtaining different experiences. God's nature, on the other hand, is radically different from the nature of physical objects. It is therefore not clearly reasonable to suppose that apparent experiences of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed in the same fashion."

The second premise — that the universe had a beginning — is more contentious. Nevertheless, there are good scientific and philosophical grounds to support it. Ever since the findings of the Hubble telescope, science has been compelled, sometimes under great resistance, to acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. This is what the Big Bang Theory supports: the universe had a beginning, and therefore its age can be expressed as a finite measure of time.

There are rival theories, however. Some propose that the universe operates on an Oscillating Universe Model, under which the universe eternally contracts and expands. On this view, our "Big Bang" is simply one part of the universe's cycle of contraction and expansion. Stephen Hawking has been a prominent advocate of this model. However, his equations only function with imaginary numbers substituted for certain time variables. While imaginary time is mathematically possible, it is extremely difficult to conceive of in any real-world sense. Another criticism of this model is its inability to predict the future behavior of the universe.

In addition to the scientific support, there are strong philosophical reasons to suppose the universe had a beginning. If the universe has an infinite regress into the past — which is required if one denies that the universe had a beginning — this generates several philosophical problems. First, there is the problem of actual infinites versus potential infinites. If the universe is truly infinite in its past, we would never reach the present moment, since it would require an infinite amount of time to have passed. However, this is impossible: no matter how much time has passed, it will always be a finite amount. Treating the past duration of the universe as an actual infinite is philosophically untenable.

A second philosophical consideration, supported by a key scientific principle, makes an infinitely old universe seem even more problematic. The second law of thermodynamics states that all energy, given enough time, will reach a state of equilibrium. Unless the universe is supplied with additional energy, it will fall into a state of "heat death" — a condition in which nothing changes or moves. How does this relate to an infinitely regressing universe? If the past is infinitely long, then enough time has already elapsed for the universe to have reached full equilibrium, and we should already be in a state of heat death. Since we are clearly not, it follows that not enough time has passed for equilibrium to be reached, and that the universe had to be injected with energy from its beginning — something that has no purely natural explanation.

Conclusion

The cosmological argument is a convincing proof for the existence of God. However, even if one has difficulties understanding astrophysics or accepting a finite universe, there are good cosmological arguments that do not require one to accept only God's temporal priority, since God would still be ontologically prior to the universe. Consequently, the cosmological argument is able to demonstrate that God exists.