The Cosmological Argument

Cosmological arguments use the observation that everything depends on something else for its existence. Everything that exists is caused by something; we rely on our parents to exist and they rely on their parents and so on. Cosmological arguments then apply this to the existence of the universe itself. The argument is that the universe depends on something else to exist, and that something is God.

Good to know: OCR does not have to know this but it is still useful as a basic idea of how causation is used as proof of God.

The Kalam Argument

This is the simplest version of the cosmological argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
This theory was originally posited by medieval Islamic scholars but it was revitalised again recently by William Lane Craig.
The argument's claim is about the metaphysical impossibility of a temporally past-infinite universe. There can be no infinite regress.

Aquinas' 5 Ways:
1.) The Argument from Motion

Some things in the world are in motion.
Nothing can move itself; whatever is in motion must be moved by something else.
If A is moved by B, then B must be moved by C, and so on.
This chain of movers cannot regress infinitely, because without a first mover, no other movers would exist.
But things are in motion.
Therefore, there must be a first mover.
Aquinas concludes that this first mover is God.

Aquinas' 5 Ways:
2.) The Argument from Causation

Everything in the universe has a cause.
Causes form a sequence: C is caused by B, and B by A.
This chain of causes cannot regress infinitely, because without a first cause, no other causes (and no effects) would exist.
But causes and effects do exist in the world.
Therefore, there must be a first cause that began the chain of causation.
Aquinas concludes that this first cause is God.

Aquinas' 5 Ways:
3.) The Argument from Contingency

Things that exist contingently are things that can come into and go out of existence. It's an imperfection as things that exist contingently can decay and die.
For example, a tree exists contingently: it only exists because someone planted the seed.
Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point.
If everything were contingent, then at some time in the past, nothing would have existed.
But if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever begin to exist.
However, things do exist now, so there was never a time when there was absolutely nothing.
Therefore, there must be at least one being that does not exist contingently – a being that exists necessarily.
Aquinas concludes that this necessary being is God.

Saint_Thomas_Aquinas_Diego_Velázquez.jpg

Interesting to know: you only have to know the first 3 ways. But the 4th Way is called the Argument from Gradation and the 5th Way is the argument for design.

In an exam you could get asked about any of the first 3 ways, so make sure you know them in detail and which is which.

Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg

Descartes' Cosmological Argument

I cannot be the cause of my own existence, because if I were, I would have given myself all perfections (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience).
Therefore, I depend on something else to exist.
I am a thinking thing and I have the idea of a perfect God.
The cause of my existence must have at least as much reality as I do (the causal adequacy principle).
So whatever caused me must also be a thinking thing and must contain the idea of God.
That cause must either cause itself, or be caused by something else.
If it was caused by something else, then that cause must also either be self-caused or caused by another.
This chain cannot go back to infinity.
Therefore, there must be something that causes its own existence.
A being that causes its own existence must have all perfections — and this is God.

Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason

Leibniz says that every truth has an explanation of why it is the case, even if we don't know the explanation).
There are two different types of truth:
Truths of reasoning: this is basically another word for necessary or analytic truths, like maths, geometry, tautologies. Things that are apparent just through reasoning.
Truths of fact: this is basically another word for contingent or synthetic truths. This is anything else, general real world facts that you can go and investigate.
The sufficient reason for truths of reasoning is revealed by analysis.
It is much more difficult to provide sufficient reason for truths of fact (contingent truths) because you can always provide more detail via more contingent truths.

EG: I have a cup of tea right now; Q.) but why do you have that? A.) Because I made it. Q.) Why did you make it? A.) Because I wanted one. Q.) Where did you get the cup from? A.) It's a Dead by Daylight cup I got online. Q.) Who made it? When did you buy it? What is it made of? What's Dead by Daylight? etc....
Basically, there is an endless amount of information you can request and investigate about something contingent. It's like a kid repeatedly going "but why?" over and over again. You can ask why about anything!
So, to escape this endless cycle of contingent facts and provide sufficient reason for truths of fact, we need to step outside the sequence of contingent facts and appeal to a necessary substance. This necessary substance is God.

Problem: Can there be an Infinite Regress?

Most cosmological arguments assume that an infinite chain of causes is impossible and that there must be a first cause, a first mover or a necessary being that begins contingent existence.
We could argue that it may be logically possible that a chain of causes does stretch back infinitely with no starting point.
Some modern physics concepts suggest this:

Cyclic universe models suggest that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch). In this view, there’s no “first” moment. The chain of causes could stretch infinitely into the past.

If you're interested in reading more about this theory, the Baum–Frampton and Steinhardt–Turok models are two of the most well known exampled of this. Albert Einstein also noted the possibility of this!

Problem: Hume's Objection to Causation

Hume's Fork comes up a lot, so it is definitely important to know it in detail!
Cosmological arguments are based on an assumptions such as ‘everything has a cause’.
Hume’s fork (the two types of knowledge) can be used to question this claim:
Relation of ideas: (analytic truths)
Remember, analytic truths cannot be thought of as opposite, nor denied, because denying them causes a contradiction (4-sided triangle etc).
‘Everything has a cause’ is not a relation of ideas because we can conceive the opposite - something without a cause. For example, we can imagine a chair that just manifesting into existence for no reason.
Matter of fact: (synthetic truths)
Synthetic truths are things that you can investigate.
‘Everything has a cause’ cannot be known as a matter of fact because we don't actually experience causation, just the ‘constant conjunction’ of one event following another.
In the case of the universe’s creation, we only observe, and have ever observed, its continued existence. We never experience what caused it to exist. Therefore, we cannot claim that the universe must have a cause.

Problem: The Fallacy of Composition

Bertrand Russell argues that cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition. This assumes that because the parts of something have a property, the whole must also have it.
EG: Just because all the players on a football team are good, it doesn’t guarantee the team is good.
Applied to cosmological arguments: Just because everything within the universe has a sufficient reason for its existence, it does not follow that the universe as a whole must have a sufficient reason.
This is known as Brute Fact in contemporary philosophy and is seen as a direct opposition to the sufficient reason hypothesis.
“I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.” - Russell

Problem: Kant

Kant believes that causation is valid but only when it is within human experience.
The Cosmological Argument starts from experience but then it moves beyond experience.
Kant says that we cannot legitimately infer the existence of a necessary being because necessity is not something that we can observe empirically.
Kant claims that to go from “there must be a necessary being” to “God exists”, the cosmological argument relies on the ontological claim that existence is a necessary property of God. And so: Kant argues that the Cosmological Argument actually relies on the Ontological Argument (which he also criticises).