The Cosmological Argument

Metaphysical Philosophy

October 31st, 2017

The Cosmological Argument

In his book, Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil deGrasse Tyson begins with a short epigraph stating, “the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Scientific history is based on earthly discovery, but when studying the origins of the universe, much of the conception of reality that society holds is squandered. However, the largest questions of mankind begin with origin and the search for creation as the core to who we are as beings on earth. The most famed metaphysical argument in favor of God, the Cosmological Argument, stems from Aristotle but is reintroduced to Christianity by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century the most sound philosophical argument of the day. Additionally, we were introduced to the Cosmological (Demonstrative) Argument in a handout in class. While I would argue that the handout of the Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God we have read, and personally believe there is a creator, this argument alone does not legitimize a deity.

The handout of the cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument and begins by forming a stream of logic stating that everything that exists has a cause and all causes are temporally prior to their effects so nothing causes itself. From here, the argument evolves into two streams of thought: that the universe has a finite or infinite succession of natural events. The finite argument stems from the assumption that if there was a first thing, then something caused a succession of events. This initial catalyst of the events could not be caused by anything naturally: therefore, it has to be supernatural. If the succession is infinite, it progresses so that if there is any succession at all, it has to have had a beginning cause or reason to create the succession which cannot be natural due to the bound outside of time, concluding that a deity exists.

Everything in existence has a cause or reason for existing. This is the first argument stated in the handout of the cosmological argument, theoretically confirming the existence of a non-contingent being. This statement begs the question, why would God not need a beginning if the universe does? If everything else in succession in the universe requires a beginning then who/what began God? It assumes all things that come into and go out of existence are dependent upon other factors for their existence, where things either exist or do not exist. However, the assumption that all things that exist have a cause is in itself a contentious genesis. Philosopher John Mackie affirms that there is not sufficient justification to deduce that a fortuitous beginning of all things is impossible. He states that it is illogical to inductively employ the Causal Principle to philosophically extrapolate the origin of the universe.

The Causal Principle was originally defined by Descartes stating that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, whether formally or eminently. Descartes's claim, “Ex nihilo nihil fit,” “Out of nothing comes nothing,” also known as the Causal Principle, does not unquestionably provide any answers on creation, considering new discoveries of modern science. The Cosmological Argument was written in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas who had no conception or knowledge of the conservation of energy theory or Einstein’s theory of relativity, both of which came after Aquinas’s time. Each of these scientific theories state, or assume, that the universe has a fixed amount of energy which can never be created or destroyed but can be converted into different forms. However, the initial statement of the handout, that ‘everything in existence has a cause or reason for existing,’ cannot be entirely true. Quantum mechanics has divulged some major issues for the Cosmological Argument. At the quantum level, the example of virtual particles serves as a contingency for the starting argument. These particles seemingly appear and disappear at random, leading some physicists to create models of the universe which could theoretically develop on their own in quantum vacuums. These vacuums existed when inflation began and were amplified to form the catalyst of the current observable structure. This vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current expansion of the universe which is rapidly growing. This would negate the argument that the initial cause of the universe is a supernatural being; however, this realization in quantum mechanics is relatively new, and development is still required to fully negate the argument using science.

Nevertheless, despite major scientific models showing the possibility of a universe with no cause, it does not adequately nullify the existence of God. The quantum vacuums contain energy, and by negating the quantifiable energy levels, one would be ignoring the initial cause of the vacuum. This would invalidate the entire premise of the quantum argument at this point in development, as the quantum vacuums in turn have a cause, and something logically caused that initial energy which is still unexplained

Additionally,