THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

I think that the logical presentation of an argument offers clarity and appeal. The next chapters are presented in the form of a syllogism – two premises and a conclusion. If the two premises are shown to be likely, then the conclusion is unavoidable.

For an illuminating example:

PREMISES #1: All bachelors are unmarried.

PREMISES #2: John is unmarried.

Conclusion: John is a bachelor

It is easy to see that if we prove that John is unmarried, it automatically means that he is a bachelor.

Similarly, the Cosmological proof argues that the first Cause had to always exist or it too would have required a cause, and only God can fulfill the necessary requirements. Here’s what it looks like

PREMISIS  #1:  All things that have come into existence are caused to exist.

PREMISIS  #2:   If there is no eternal uncaused Causer, then nothing can exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an eternal uncaused Causer - God.

PREMISE #1 All things that have come into existence are caused to exist:

To deny this is absurd. To illustrate, if I tell you that my cup of coffee just appeared without any cause, you would think me crazy. This is because we never see uncaused things materialize out of nothing.

We reasonably assume that there are causes for any phenomena. That’s why we do science – to discover the causal relationships. Therefore, to deny that phenomena require causes is to reject the basic assumption of science – that everything has a reason or a cause.

PREMISE #2  If there is no eternal uncaused Causer, then nothing can exist:

It follows that something or Someone must be uncaused and therefore eternal in order to explain the existence of everything else. If this ultimate Causer is eternal, there is no need to explain its cause, because it always was.

We cannot conclude that the universe caused itself, because it would first have to exist to cause anything. Nor can we conclude that there was an apparatus that causes universes. Why not? Because, then we would have to ask, “What caused the apparatus.” If we then claim that there is a mechanism that causes this apparatus, then we would again have to ask, “What caused the mechanism?”

This is the problem of an “infinite regress” of causes or explanations. It means that ultimately, there is no cause at the end of the line where the buck stops. It also suggests that no explanation is ever adequate without an uncaused and eternal Causer.

The eternal can’t be a something – the universe or some part of it. Matter and space cannot exist apart from time, and time could not have been eternal. This would have required that an infinite number of years to have already passed to arrive in the present – a logical impossibility. Why? Because only a finite number of years could possibility have been accomplished to bring us into this moment! It’s impossible for an infinite number of years to have already passed. Infinity knows no limits.

Therefore, the eternal Cause must be Transcendent. He must transcend time and space and exist apart from the time-bound universe.

Big Bang cosmology also maintains that the universe – time, space, and matter – had a beginning in time. According to Stephen Hawking:

·       “Almost everyone now believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning in the Big Bang!”

Besides, the law of entropy argues against an eternal universe, since by now, after an infinite amount of time, everything in the universe would have dissipated. Besides, if the universe had been expanding infinitely, space and matter would also be infinite. However, modern science denies that any of these are infinite.

CONCLUSION: This leaves us face-to-face with an intelligent Being who transcends time, space, and materiality, a Being who has the causal power to produce everything else.

Challenges:

Many atheists argue that we know so little about cosmology that we should not embrace any conclusion.

While they are correct about knowing so little, I think that the little we know points to God.

The skeptic will also raise the God-of-the-Gaps argument: “Because we don’t know, you assume that God did it.”

This however misrepresents theistic proofs. Here’s why:

1.    We can just as easily charge the skeptic with Naturalism-of-the-Gaps – Because we don’t know, natural unintelligent forces must have done it.

2.    There does not exist one shred of evidence that causal agents operate naturally and without intelligence or purpose.

3.    The theistic proofs do not conclude, “We don’t know, so God must have done it.” Instead, these proofs compare ID (supernaturalism) with naturalism and demonstrate that ID is the most reasonable conclusion.

Others charge that theistic proofs only make God seem probable and, therefore, are unable to serve as a basis for our faith and relationship with God.

Actually, I agree. Consequently, I do not invoke theistic proofs as a basis for faith but as a defense for faith, a means to challenge the skeptical assaults against the faith. Besides, since I have a highly doubting disposition, I sometimes think through these proofs to silence my doubts, and they do.