The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God.
St. Thomas Aquinas stated it as:
- Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
- Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
- A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
- Therefore, there must be a first cause.
The stylized “proof from the big bang” is:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Both proofs contain several problematic claims:
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Imagine two indestructible balls in space some distance apart. Gravity will bring them together until they bounce apart. They will gradually slow down, appear to pause, and then bounce again. If the system is closed, the balls will bounce off each other indefinitely. Each ball is the cause of the other’s motion — yet the system does not have a cause. If we passively observe the balls bouncing, we will only be able to view them for an arbitrary length of time, yet the series stretches back to infinity.
The universe is an entity.
This is an equivocation known as the fallacy of composition. The universe can be defined as “the set containing all entities in existence.” The universe is not itself an entity, but a collection of entities. All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be.
There is a cause “outside the universe.”
For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe.
The universe began to exist.
The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant. It is a contradiction of the concept of time to speak of a “time before time.” There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions, including the initial one. It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself.
The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time.
The first cause is God.
Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. Why should the first cause be a complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion? It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science is falsifiable, whereas dogma is not. How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster?
Further reading:
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmological Argument
- The One Minute Case For Atheism
- Wikipedia: Cosmological Argument
- Wikipedia: Time in physics
- Meetup.com post which expands on the last point.
#1 by Jason Ross - June 21st, 2007 at 14:34
I see a problem here.
“Imagine two indestructible balls in space…” Here, you might as well have said, “Imagine a Universe.” The first cause is you– you not only created the concept of “indestructible ball”, for which there is no rational support, you then quite arbitrarily created a scenario that suited your purposes. You can imagine them having simply appeared by themselves, conforming to some but not all laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains that they didn’t.
It seems as if your diffusion of the cosmological argument stems from your having arbitrarily introduced the permissability of infinite causal chains, which I don’t think is any more reasonable than the idea of a timeless being who isn’t bound by any of the laws it has created. You either have a first cause, which is capable of having caused all other entities in the Universe and thus stakes a pretty good claim on the “god” thing, or you have an infinite Universe with an infinite number of self-spawning entities. Neither sounds very good to me.
“Who’s holding up the world?”
“Atlas.”
“What’s holding him up?”
“A turtle.”
“What’s holding up that turtle?”
“Another turtle…”
#2 by HeroicLife - June 22nd, 2007 at 00:31
Isn’t the impossibility of an infinite causal chain also an arbitrary claim? I don’t claim that our causal chain is infinite, just eternal. The distinction is clarified here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680
#3 by Jason Ross - June 25th, 2007 at 10:21
I understand that you do not intend this to be a forum for debate, so I’ll try to be brief. Is it a correct reading of your argument against a “first cause” for the universe that there can be no “first cause” or “prime entity” that exists outside of the universe because “universe” is inclusive of all entities and thus all causes? If so, I see now what you are saying. We can’t tallk about “an X before time” or “an X outside the universe” because they are fallacies. We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation.
BTW, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe. So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. One of the writers in the thread to which you linked suggests that it’s simply a “headache-inducing” problem. I, for one, strive for better than that.
#4 by Cameron S - January 5th, 2009 at 13:48
So, here’s a formal description of your argument:
U = {x | x exists }
Then, there exists some deity, g, such that g started the universe. However, since we grant that g exists, g must exist in U, and therefore cannot have ’caused’ U. Then, either g does not exist or g exists outside of U, which implies that g does not exist.
That’s fairly sound logic.
However, suppose this: there are an infinite number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number. Then, we redefine must redefine what a Universe is: A tuple that contains a set of all things in it, and some description of where it is located. Since, assumedly, any given universe is infinite in size, we’re really simply describing how to reach that universe – think of it as that universe’s address, or a map to get there. Then an arbitrary universe, Ui, is defined as Ui = ({x | x exists in Ui’s space},(Ui’s space)).
Now, let us define a multiverse, M, such that M = { U | U is a Universe}. Then, define some function, f, such that f is a tuple that takes in a set of entities and a address in the form of a Universe’s space and returns a Universe (f:ExA->U). Then, to add a universe to M, we simply state:
M = M (union) f({things to be included},(where to place the new universe)).
Then, ‘God’ may be described as any being in M that can use f. However, this definition is lacking, so let us state it this way:
M = { x | x is one of infinite places to store a universe }
Then, M is of infinite size, and any number of universes can be created. Then, we must redefine f as follows:
f:{x | x is something that can exist}xM->(null), where f simply places all x given to f into M. Then, a time before time for any given universe, Ui, is a time that occurs in a younger universe, Uj. Now, since we do not require that all things in existence be present in any universe, we can have a being outside of M that may apply f as many times as it sees fit. Then, we have a basis for creating universes that does not require a previous universe, and therefore a basis for intelligent design.
#5 by Timothy Shaw-Zak - January 5th, 2009 at 15:52
Jason Ross:
“the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe.”
As a finite being with limited access to a very finite subset of a subset of phenomenon, you have enough knowledge to confirm or deny the extent of the universe is infinite.
Yet it is perfectly acceptable to posit that not only does your (puny) mind know the extent of the *universe*, it posits an even more infinite being which is uncaused or eternal in the same sense that you denied the universe could be – and this somehow does not ‘contradict’ your infinite knowledge that the universe is finite.
This is problematic because this God, being an aspect of the existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction. By your own premises there is no God, QED.
#6 by Tjitze - April 28th, 2009 at 01:25
Jason
”We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation.”
Here you’re explicitly asking for a reason why ‘’something” exists instead of ”nothing”.
But ”nothing” could not exist as a thing or it would be part of something, ‘’somethings” are the only sort of things (as opposed to the direct contradiction of ”non-things”) wich can logically exist.
#7 by Grames - May 4th, 2009 at 22:41
The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to everything that exists. The law of identity is an axiomatic metaphysical principle which applies to all entities directly and equally, of any and all levels of complexity, bypassing the problem presented by the distributive fallacies.
It is an error to think that the universe is finite because all of the things in it are finite, that would be the fallacy of composition. This argument is wrong but the conclusion is validated by other means.
#8 by Paul Emerich de Oliveira - November 17th, 2009 at 11:29
Why such and not something else.
The specificity of the cosmos is evidence of its reality. Furthermore,” such a specific universe reveals its contingency by its being limited to a specific form of physical existence”.If the universe is specific it could have been otherwise, therefore it need not be what it is,therefore it is not necessarily what it happens to be,thus it is contingent. The idea of specificity in the cosmos can mean that it is determinate, or tuned to a specific purpose or that it is striking in its limitedness.Science in its current state is not able to regress far enough in establishing the begining of it all in time to its origin or regress beyond that time of its origin.Matters of the existence of God should be left in the realm of metaphysics rather than in science.Infinite regression is beyond reason.It is based on an enternal world view adopted by cultures that believed in a cyclical re-occuring never ending universe ,begining anew in conflagration after so many thousands of years. A book on this very subject can be purchased” Science & Creation” ,by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki.
Sincerely, Paul