Cosmological+Argument

This argument for God’s existence is an argument affirming that the universe had a beginning and that its Cause is God. In a logical sense, the argument goes like this:


 * 1) // Whatever begins to exist has a cause //
 * 2) // The universe began to exist //
 * 3) // Therefore the universe has a cause //

Now, if premises 1 and 2 are correct, it follows logically and necessarily that 3 is true. So, the question is, are the premises true? Well, let us dissect each one and see.

__// Premise 1 //__
**// Whatever begins to exist has a cause //**

This seems to be rather harmless to affirm. To say that something comes into exists also means that that something has a cause for it coming into being. There are three reasons to believe that premise 1 is true beyond all reasonable doubt:
 * 1) //Something cannot come from nothing.// You can not have nothing create something! Everything that begins to exist must have some reason for its existence – it can not have nothing be its cause for existence! “To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic.”[1]
 * 2) //If something can come into being from nothing, then why doesn’t just anything or everything come into being from nothing?//[2] Think for a minute: If something can come from nothing, then why don’t pink elephants just come into being out of nothing? Why don’t $100 bills just spontaneously come from nothing? “Why is it only the universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!”[3]
 * Now, right about here a skeptic or atheist will say, “Fine then, if everything has a cause, then what is God’s cause?” This retort however is misguided for they misunderstand the premise. Premise 1 does not say everything has a cause, but rather everything that begins to exist has a cause. To Christian theists, God has the attributes of timelessness, spacelessness and changelessness. And those attributes are all eternal in nature – therefore, God is eternal. He never began to exist and He will never go out of existence.[4]
 * After giving that position, the skeptic or atheist will probably think this is special pleading for God, but this is not the case because Christians traditionally affirm God is such an eternal being. [5] Therefore, they may then say something like, “If you can have an eternal God, I can have an eternal Universe!” However, the difference is that evidence shows this is not the case for the universe. Evidence shows the opposite – that the universe is finite in nature (more on this in a minute).
 * 1) //Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1//.[6] Scientific evidence supports that everything that exists came from something else – this is the Law of Causality: for every effect there is a cause.

//__ Premise 2 __//
**// The universe began to exist //**

Philosophical and scientific arguments and evidence exist that strongly suggest that the universe began to exist. Due to time and space, I will simply discuss a philosophical argument and 2 scientific arguments for why the universe is not infinite but is finite.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**// Philosophical Argument //**__

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**// I. An Actual Infinity of Things Cannot Exist //**

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">**//Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali//**, a famous Islamic apologist during the mid 1050’s to early 1100’s A.D. affirmed that if the universe was eternal then up to today, there have been an infinite number of past days/events that have occurred.[7] However, Al-Ghazali argued that an actual infinite number of things (days, events, numbers or whatever) can not exist. Al-Ghazali affirmed that there is the potential to reach infinity but you can never actually reach infinity. Let me explain the difference between the //potential vs. actual infinity//.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">In a //potential infinity// you are continually counting to infinity without actually arriving at infinity. “For example, you could divide any finite distance in half, and then into fourths, and then into eights, and then into sixteenths, and so on to infinity. The number of divisions is potentially infinite, in the sense that you could go on dividing endlessly. But you’d never arrive at an ‘infiniteth’ division. You’d never have an actually infinite number of parts or divisions.”[8] In short you have the potential (the possibility) to reach infinity, but you will never actually arrive at infinity!

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">On the flip side an //actual infinity// would be a set (of events, causes, days, numbers or whatever) that has no potential to grow to infinity but is an actual, complete, fully infinite set. In an actual (real, concrete, definite) infinite set of things you can not subtract from or add to the set because it is already completely infinite! Infinity is infinity; you can not take away from infinity or add to infinity.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Now, here is the catch with all of this: if you can not add or subtract to an actual infinity then you can not count back, subtracting past days/events from today till you arrive at an infinite past and say the universe is eternal![9] The reason is you can not subtract from an infinite – you can not count down from today and go backwards to the first day in the infinite universe! What would the number of the first day be in the infinite timeline? Furthermore, if the universe (which is comprised of space, time and matter) is infinite, then how could today have ever arrived? At what number in the ACTUAL infinite set of days on the timeline are we at? Are we at day 10, or day 1 million, or day 365 trillion on the infinite timeline? Furthermore, how can you even plot day 1, 2, or 3 and so on an infinite timeline? The answer is you cannot!

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">With that, it can be asserted that an actual infinite set of things (events, causes, days or numbers) can not exist. Therefore specifically, an infinite number of days could not exist before today. And thus, the universe can not be infinite in its nature and must therefore be finite – meaning it had a beginning point.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;"> <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**__// Scientific Arguments //__** <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**// I. The Expansion of the Universe //**

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Before **//Albert Einstein//** began working on his theory of general relativity, it was believed that the universe was eternal by the majority of the scientific community. Most assumed either the universe never began to exist or either it was “just there” without any real explanation. However, in the late 1910’s Einstein began to discover through his scientific investigation that “the universe…was either blowing up like a balloon or else collapsing in upon itself.”[10] Seeing the implication of where his findings were going, Einstein “fudged” some of his equations to ensure that the universe was eternal, standing between implosion and explosion.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">In the early to mid 1920’s a Russian mathematician **//Alexander Friedman//** and a Belgian astronomer **//Georges Lemaitre//** used Einstein’s equations and discovered the fudge factor that he had done and fixed them to be correct. In the short story, both men reassessed their theories with the new equations and discovered that the universe itself was actually expanding. The implication was clear – the universe was expanding out from an origin point. This confirmed that the universe (space, time and matter) actually came into existence – it had a beginning![11]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Eventually, //Friedman and Lemaitre’s theory// for the expanding universe (which came to be known as the //“Big Bang Theory//”) was verified by the scientific discovery of **//Edwin Hubble//** in 1929 when Hubble observed through his **//Mount Wilson Observatory//** telescope that distant galaxies appeared to have a red tint to them. This red tint or //“redshift”// with all the galaxies around our galaxy was due to the stretching of the light waves of those galaxies as they moved away from our galaxy. In short, the galaxies moving apart from each other was showing that space itself was expanding outwards, thus stretching the galaxies farther apart from one another! The key is that if space was moving outwards, it then was moving outwards from a singular point; a point if traced backwards would shrink to zero.[12]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%; line-height: 0px; overflow: hidden;"> <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">In 2003, three leading scientists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that Friedman and Lamaitre and Hubble were correct in their analysis of the stretching and beginning of the universe. In the //Bord-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem//, “any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary;” this goes for any multi-verse theory or other theories of the universe – all have to have a beginning point![13]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">With that, it can be affirmed beyond all reasonable doubt that the universe did in fact have a beginning point.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**// II. The Thermodynamic of the Universe //**

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">The Laws of Thermodynamics (this is a branch of physics that deals with the mechanical action or relations of heat) show that there is a beginning point of the universe.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//The First Law of Thermodynamics// “states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy.”[14] Now, think of this for a moment: if the universe has only a finite amount of energy upon which it runs, then how can it be infinite in its being? If the universe was infinite, wouldn’t it have already run out of its finite energy? I think so.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Now //the Second Law of Thermodynamics// (also known as the //Law of Entropy//) asserts that “nature tends to bring things to disorder”. That is, with time, things naturally fall apart.”[15] Things that are first created, from cars, to microwaves, to people, all have 100% energy, but as they age they lose energy and begin to break down. Such is the case with the universe. The universe is breaking down, it is losing energy and as a result is going towards “heat death” – when all of its energy will be gone. Now, the question is, if the universe is breaking down because of a lack of energy, how could it be eternal? Would not the universe have already become completely disordered infinity ago? The fact is, since the universe is losing energy, it can not be eternal but finite – it had to have a beginning.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">With just the one philosophical argument against an actual infinite and the two strong scientific arguments above (both the Expansion of the Universe and the Thermodynamic Laws of the Universe) we can clearly affirm that premise 2 the universe began to exist – is correct beyond all reasonable doubt! (Note that I could have discussed half a dozen or more arguments that confirm the beginning of the universe, but the point is already seen.)

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">//__ Premise 3 __//
<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**// Therefore the universe has a cause //**

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Here is where all the philosophical and scientific hubbub comes together. You see, if the universe began to exist then the universe has a cause of its existence! Now, this “cause” for the universe must have properties that make it different from the universe (otherwise it would be the universe and thus the universe would have caused itself, which is ridiculous!). So what kind of properties would this //First Cause// have?

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">The First Cause must be outside of the universe – that is it must transcend (be beyond) space, time and matter; it must be above or outside of nature – something super-natural In other words, this First Cause would have the properties of being timeless, spaceless and immaterial. It would also have the properties of omnipotence – that is it would have to be a cause that is all-powerful because it has the capacity to bring forth all of existence. Furthermore, this First Cause would have the property of being uncaused – there would be no thing that caused it to come into being. Why, you ask, would the Law of Causality not apply here? Because, as we have seen, an actual infinite series of events or causes is impossible – you must have some ultimate starting point in which there is a first uncaused Cause.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Now, not only would the First Cause contain the properties of timelessness, spacelessness, immaterialness and uncausedness, but the First Cause would also be personal. Why would it be personal you say? There are two major reasons why the First Cause would be personal:
 * 1) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">**//Firstly//**, “the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality.” What is meant by this? Well, the only things in existence that are considered timeless and immaterial are either abstract objects (like numbers) or minds – that is it. Now, I think we can safely say that abstract objects do not cause anything! For example, the number 21 may exist timelessly and it is immaterial, but it can not cause anything to happen! It just exists as an idea, not a concrete causal being. Thus, since abstract objects do not cause anything we are left with an un-embodied mind as the First Cause of everything (and a mind is personal because it is a property of persons).[16]
 * 2) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//**Secondly**//, the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by an infinite, timeless cause bringing forth a finite, in time effect. Let me explain what is meant by this. Up to this point, we can assert that the cause of the universe (the First Cause) is something that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and uncaused (essentially infinite in nature). This infinite First Cause brought into existence an effect (the universe) which is in time, in space, material, and with a beginning to its existence (essentially finite in nature). So we now have a situation in which the cause is eternal but the effect is not – in short the cause can exist without the effect, or wholly apart from the effect. Now, the question is, if the cause has all the properties of timelessness, spacelessness, immateriality, and eternality then why would the effect not have the same or similar properties as the cause? Put another way why would the cause be eternal but its effect would not be eternal?[17]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">The only answer to these questions is to say that the First Cause of the universes coming into being is a personal cause – a personal Being – that freely chose to create the universe in time. Such a cause and effect is what they call “agent causation” – in which an agent freely chooses to initiate an effect.[18]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">So, with the philosophical argument, the two scientific arguments and with asserting the personhood of the First Cause we can establish that the First Cause of the universe has the following properties: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, omnipotent, eternal, and personal. All of those properties are exactly the properties theists (mono-theists specifically) ascribe to GOD. Understand all of these properties have been deduced not from a religious texts or experiences but from philosophical and scientific arguments and evidences.

[1] Craig, William Lane. //__On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision__//. (Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook. 2010) pg 75 [2] Ibid 77  [3] Ibid 77  [4] Ibid 77  [5] Ibid 78  [6] Ibid 78  [7] Ibid 74-78  [8] Ibid 79  [9] Ibid 79-84  [10] Ibid 87  [11] Information in this paragraph comes from: Ibid 87-88  [12] Information in this paragraph comes from: Ibid 88-89  [13] Information in this paragraph comes from: Ibid 92-93  [14] Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. //__I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist__//. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004) pg 76 [15] Ibid 77  [16] Information in this paragraph comes from: Craig, William et.al. //“Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God” by William Lane Craig.”// //__God is Great, God is Good__//. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009) pg 16 [17] Information in this paragraph comes from: Ibid pg 17  [18] Information in this paragraph comes from: Ibid pg 17