The Cosmological Argument

1. The Cosmological Argument Grounding the Kalam

2. Defining the Cosmological Argument Any argument that starts with the "cosmos" or world A posteriori argument (vs. a priori argument) Concludes in a cause for the cosmos.

3. Defining the Cosmological Argument Three main families: 1. From ordered causes (Thomas Aquinas) 2. From temporal causes (William Lane Craig) 3. From the principle of sufficient reason (Gottfried Leibniz)

4. Defining the Cosmological Argument Due to the popularity of William Lane Craig, the KalamCosmological Argument has become extremely popularand nearly synonymous with the term "Cosmological Argument"

6. The Necessity of a First Cause 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause 2. The universe came into existence 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

7. The Nature of the First Cause: 1. The universe is the complete set of things in the space-time continuum 2. The cause of a thing cannot be a part of the thing itself 3. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be a part of the space-time continuum The Kalam Cosmological Argument

8. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

9. Explaining the KCA 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause No Cause External Cause Three Possibilities: Self-Caused No cause: Experientially absurd. "From nothing, nothing comes" Self-cause: self-contradictory - would have to exist to produce itself External cause: only possible answer, and lines up with our experience Necessarily true principle

10. Explaining the KCA 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause 2. The universe came into existence Big Bang / Expansion of the Universe Lack of Heat Death Scientific Fact

11. Explaining the KCA 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause 2. The universe came into existence 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

12. Traditional Objections Doesn't tell us anything about the cause! Is it personal or impersonal? Couldn't it just be a multiverse? Is it moral, immoral, or amoral? Is it the god of any particular religion, which one, and how would you know?

13. Traditional Objections 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause “Everything must have a cause” What caused God? God is not the kind of thing that comes into existence

14. Traditional Objections 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause Implies two types of objects: Those that begin to exist (BE) and those that do not begin to exist (NBE). What doesn't come into existence other than God? Total set of NBE = God Thus, the two types can be reduced to God and everything else,. So (1) can be restated, "Everything other than God has a cause," which is an example of circular reasoning, since it "defines God into existence."

15. Traditional Objections 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause Still proves the universe has a cause (logic still follows) 1. Everything other than God has a cause 2. The universe is other than God 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

16. Traditional Objections 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause Assumes causality applies to the extra-mental world (Hume/Kant)

17. Traditional Objections 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause Assumes causality applies to the extra-mental world (Hume/Kant)

18. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence What if the universe is eternal? (Historical Atheistic Position) Scientific models: Steady-state theory, oscillating model, etc. No warrant from modern science

19. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence Fallacy of Composition (Hume, Russell): thing's come into existence, but the universe is not a thing (that every man has a mother does not mean the human race has a mother) Even taking the universe as a composite, all of the individual things must have come into existence at some point. Where did the "first thing" come from? What caused it? "The Universe" could not be the cause of one of its "parts."

20. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence Reverse Cosmological Argument: The universe is all that exists, therefore, if God exists, God is part of the universe and would need a cause. Can't be true, because it would set up an infinite regress of causes Misdefines "universe" - even scientists talk about "this universe" as opposed to "that universe" when suggesting a multi-verse theory.

21. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence Fallacy of Equivocation: "Everything" in (1) is not the same as "Everything" in (2). Sees argument as:

22. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence 1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause 2. Everything that exists (= the universe) has a cause 3. Therefore, everything that exists has a cause "Everything in (1) is general; "Everything" in (2) is collective

23. Traditional Objections 2. The universe came into existence 1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause 2. Everything that exists (= the universe) has a cause 3. Therefore, everything that exists has a cause BUT: Even taking the universe as a composite, all of the individual things must have come into existence at some point. Where did the "first thing" come from? What caused it? "The Universe" could not be the cause of one of its "parts."

24. A Christian Objection "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist" (Thomas Aquinas, ST Ia.46.2)

25. A Christian Objection Necessary Truths vs. Contingent Truths Necessary Truths: Contingent Truths: Something that must be true by definition Known to be true as soon as terms are grasped Something that is true but could be false Known as true after 1. Terms are grasped, and 2. Verified by observation

26. A Christian Objection Some Questions: 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause Is this premise a necessary or contingent truth? How is it known? 2. The universe came into existence Is this premise a necessary or contingent truth? How is it known? Necessary  Reason alone Contingent Reason plus scientific observations

27. A Christian Objection God of the Gaps? A God-of-the-Gaps argument is one that says that God must exist because we can't explain some physical phenomena any other way. Lightening = Zeus' thunder bolts Sun's orbit = Apollo's chariot Rain fall = Rain dances

28. Revisiting the Minor Premise 2. The universe came into existence Big Bang / Expasion of the Universe Lack of Heat death Scientific fact But what if science overturns these discoveries and argues that the universe is actually eternal? The Kalam, as stated, is at best an argument from ignorance (God of the gaps!)

29. Revisiting the Minor Premise 2. The universe came into existence Big Bang / Expasion of the Universe Lack of Heat death Scientific fact "Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God." (Aquinas, SCG II.38.8)

30. Revisiting the Minor Premise Two possible ways to understand Kalam'sMinor Premise 2a. The universe probably came into existence A. Evidence from the Big Bang B. Evidence from the lack of heat death 2b. The universe necessarily came into existence

31. Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2b 1. An eternal universe would be actually infinite 2. Any actual infinity entails absurdities 3. Therefore, any eternal universe would entail absurdities. Self-evidently true But why believe this is true?

32. Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2a Since 2b is probably false, 2a should be accepted. Thus the argument should be formulated as: 1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause 2a. The universe probably came into existence. 3a. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause. This is a valid, and NOT a God-of-the-Gaps.

33. Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2a Since 2b is probably false, 2a should be accepted. Thus the argument should be formulated as: 1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause 2a. The universe probably came into existence. 3a. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause. Recognizes that science could overturn 2a, BUT Draws valid inference from evidence as we currently have it. What warrant does someone have for thinking that science will overturn 2a?

34. God-of-the-Gaps Sidelight HER: I thought you said you were going to hang the plant. ME: Yes, and there it is on the hook. HER: But you said you were going to do it. You're not doing it the hook is, you liar. ME: But I put the hook there and hung the plant from it. HER: Thatsnot what you said you'd do. You said nothing about a hook, you said you would do it. ME: And I did, with a hook. HER: Which means that you lied when you said that you'd do it. Besides, how do I know that you put the hook in and did the hanging? ME: Its there isn't it? Did you do it? HER: I didn't, but maybe you made someone else do it. Maybe a burglar broke in last night, and seeing the plant in the middle of the floor decided to hang it instead of robbing us. Maybe a sudden change in the earth's magnetic field twisted the hook into the ceiling and a hugh gust of wind carried the plant up onto it. How do I know that you did it? ME: (exasperated) The plant is hanging, I did it, you just have to decide if you believe me. Doug Craigen, PhD (physics); former professor of physics at Acadia University (Revision 1.0 - Feb. 9, 1996) http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/old/godofgap.php

35. God-of-the-Gaps Sidelight As tempting as it may often be, it is a mistake to consider the failure of science to explain something as a proof of God's work. Such failures are nothing more or less than a demonstration of how far science has progressed, and a pointer to where some progress still needs to be made. Believing in a great creator means not doubting the quality of His creation. It is ironic that we often try to prove the existence of God by claims that essentially say He isn't such a great creator.

36. The Cosmological Argument Grounding the Kalam

37. Chris Morrison chrismorrison@cccgracealone.org