Cosmological Argument

Riley Childers

Philosophy and Ethics

Professor Kraft

2/15/2016

Cosmological Argument

As a child, I heard many different theories as to how humans became humans. For the most part, there are two dominant sides to the cosmological theory.  One side believes that we started as a tiny, single cell and continued to mutate to our surroundings. Eventually, we mutated into a type of water creature, then another mutation occurred to where we could live on land. After plenty of changes, due to the changes in the habitats, the human was formed and reigned supreme. All of these events happened after the Big Bang, supposedly. Now, the more logical argument, to me, is that God created man and everything else on earth. This constant battle of history is, and quite possibly will always be, the cosmological argument. Not knowing much about one side of this argument, I am trying to use this essay to try and broaden my knowledge and possibly even change my views. I am doubtful that the view I was raised to believe in could be changed by philosophers, but I am an open minded person and want to clearly understand their side of the argument.

According to William Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy in Los Angeles, CA, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore, it has a cause. Going deeper into that premise, consider that something can pop into existence without a cause. It’d be like magic, without the magician. Think about it; if something can just appear into existence from nothing, why don’t we see it happening all the time? It is impossible and has been proven so by everyday science and experience. But the question still arises; did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists will usually say it has been here forever. Craig states that we should put the second law of thermodynamics into consideration. This law says that the universe is running out of usable energy, slowly but surely. A good question brought up by Craig is that if the universe really has been here forever, why hasn’t it run out of this energy yet? The second law points us towards the direction that the universe has a definite beginning. Craig also listed a series of scientific discoveries that further confirms this theory. Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, in 1915, opened up doors for more people to actually discuss and understand the universe’s past. With the help of Einstein’s equations, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre came to the conclusion that the universe is always expanding. Afterwards, Edwin Hubble managed to measure the red shift in light from far off galaxies in 1929. This was evidence that proved the universe was not only expanding, but that it became an entity at a single point in the past. This discovery was monumental and was nearly incomprehensible, according to Craig. Despite unpopular belief of a finite universe, in the scientific community, no opposing theories or models could last against Hubble’s. In 2003, three cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that any universe that has been growing, and expanding, throughout the history of its existence can’t possibly be eternal in the past. These universes must have a finite beginning. This would be the same for multiverses, if such a thing actually exists. This means that scientists can’t hide behind the belief of a past-eternal universe anymore. There is no way around it, they have to accept the idea of a cosmic beginning. Any type of model must have a beginning, like the standard one. It's still a possibility that both sides of the discussion are true. Craig states that this means that the conclusion is true as well; the universe has a cause. And because the universe cannot simply cause itself, the cause must be beyond the space-time universe or anything that can be scientifically explained. According to Craig, “It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like God.” The Cosmological Argument shows strong proof that it is actually reasonable to have a belief in God’s existence.

On the opposing side of this argument, there is Quentin Smith. Smith, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Kentucky, presents a useful number of theoretical considerations which are supposedly supporting the claim that the universe began because of something like a singularity in addition with some more rough details about the original mathematics and physics. Smith appears to be a bit more enthusiastic than Craig about recent scientific theories about the early stages of the universe. For example, he shows more interest in inflationary scenarios, grand unified theories, supersymmetry, vacuum fluctuation models, creation of dark matter and things along these lines. In Theism, Atheism, And Big Bang Cosmology, Smith discusses how theism is not consistent with the classic Big Bang Theory. The other critical points which he makes seem to be correct, for the most part. Infinity And The Past is definitely one of the best essays in the collection. Though there are numerous criticisms of Craig's discussion in which I do not agree with. Contrary to Craig’s belief of the universe beginning at a particular time, Smith believes that the universe began without any type of cause at the beginning of its, then current, expansion. It was possibly successive to a singularity of infinite density, temperature and curvature, and zero radius. Or even at a singularity with finite and non-zero values. Another possibility Smith believes is that in a vacuum fluctuation from a larger space or a tunneling from nothing. The universe could have even spontaneously began to exist at the beginning of some expansion phase, which happened before, under conditions described in the previous possible situations.

        Another philosopher that I agree with greatly is William Rowe. Rowe was a philosopher at Purdue University and specialized in the connection between religion and philosophy. In 1975, he wrote an argument about the Principle of Sufficient Reason. His argument was that this principle was proof enough to support the cosmological argument. In this argument, Rowe broke down the principle into two separate parts.  Basically, he stated that the only way for something to exist, in even its smallest forms, is because of the existence of God. Rowe went in depth with his statement a bit further by stating that if something has been formed out of nothing, you might as well say something just appeared and it didn’t have to be produced. This is similar to Craig’s views, but just slightly different.  His assumption of the production of something empowers his side of the cosmological argument by stating that something has always been there first to produce the next thing. If you were to ask Rowe “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” He would most likely state that the chicken came first because something had to produce the egg. I, personally agree with his views.