THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

I think that formal logical presentations of an argument offer 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 logically unavoidable.

For a common example of a syllogism:

PREMISE #1: All bachelors are unmarried.

PREMISE #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 any first Cause must have always existed or it too would have required a cause. Only God can fulfill this essential requirement. Here is what the syllogism looks like:

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

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

CONCLUSION: Therefore, there must be an eternal, uncaused Causer—God.

PREMISE #1: All things that have come into existence have been 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 any uncaused thing materialize out of nothing.

We reasonably assume that there are causes for any phenomena. That’s why we do science—to discover the relationship between what is caused and the agents that caused it. 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 could exist.

It follows that something or Someone must be uncaused—and therefore eternal—in order to explain the existence of everything else. Because 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 need to have existed before it could have caused anything else. Nor can we conclude that there was an apparatus that caused the universe. Why not? Because, then we would have to ask, “What caused the apparatus?” If someone were to claim that there was a mechanism that caused the 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 sufficient cause or explanation at the end of the line where the buck stops. Instead, the causal chain just keeps on infinitely going without any foundational or adequate cause. This is why it appears that no causal explanation of the universe could ever be adequate without an uncaused and eternal Causer.

The eternal cannot be a something—the universe or any part of it (rather than an eternal Someone). Matter and space cannot exist apart from time, and time could not have been eternal. Why not? The concept of eternity requires an infinite number of years to have already passed in order to ever arrive in the present—a logical impossibility. Why? Because only a finite number of years could possibly have passed to bring us into this moment! It is impossible for an infinite number of years to have already passed. Infinity knows no limits. If an infinite number of years had already passed, then it wouldn’t have been infinite but finite.

Therefore, the eternal Cause must be Transcendent. He must transcend time and space and exist apart from this 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!

This has proven to be a bitter pill for most cosmologists. If the universe had a beginning, then, according to Hawking, that would open the door to a disturbing question: “Who caused it?” This is what Hawking had freely admitted about the now defunct steady-state theory of the universe—which posits that the universe has always existed:

·       The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

The law of entropy also argues against an eternal universe. By now, after a supposed infinite amount of time has passed, everything in the universe should have fallen into a state of dissipation (entropy). Another consideration: if the universe has been expanding infinitely, space and matter should also be infinite. However, modern science denies that any of these entities are infinite.

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

Challenges

Many atheists, when confronted with these facts, hoist up the flag of agnosticism as a convenient way to dodge the truth. They 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 that we do know points convincingly to God.

Other skeptics frequently bring up the God-of-the-Gaps argument: “When we don’t really know the answers, you creationists always assume that God did it.” This stance is a blatant misrepresentation of theistic proofs. Here’s how:

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. Even the objects acted upon seem to be wonders of design, including the tiniest atom.

3.    Theistic proofs do not conclude: “We don’t know, so God must have done it.” Instead, the proofs used by theists 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, should not serve as a basis for our faith and a relationship with God.

Actually, on this point, I agree. That is why I do not invoke theistic proofs as a basis for faith but for the defense of faith. These proofs are a potent means by which we may challenge the assaults of those who are skeptical of theism. Since I have a highly doubting disposition myself, I sometimes think through these proofs to silence my own doubts, and they do. They reassure me that I am following the path of truth.

Bertrand Russell and His Rejection

of the First Cause Argument for the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell, the author of Why I Am not a Christian, was regarded as the most brilliant mathematician of his day. He wrote against the theistic proofs, including the “First Cause” argument for the existence of God. The First Cause is so closely related to the Cosmological Argument that I will be consolidating the two views as I deal with Russell’s thinking on the subject.

Here is the body of Russell’s argumentation:

·       [The First Cause argument for the existence of God] maintains that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God…If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument…There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. (https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html)

There are many problems with Russell’s argument. If, as he says, “...everything we see in this world has a cause,” then God is left out of the equation, for He is not in this world. In fact, the argument from the First Cause posits that something or Someone must be eternal and uncaused. Without this uncaused first cause, there can never be a rational explanation for anything. Why not? Because cause “C” requires a prior cause “B,” and “B” requires an “A,” and this goes on infinitely—a logical impossibility. Ultimately, what this means is that there is never a sufficient cause for anything.

Russell did acknowledge that there is a need for something to be eternal and uncaused. But he suggested that the universe could be accepted as the uncaused cause with just as much validity as some might accept the idea of God. However, this suggestion violates both science and reason because science readily acknowledges that the time-space-matter universe did indeed have a beginning.

Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, Nobel laureates in physics, initially believed in the “Steady State Theory,” which maintains that the universe has always existed. If one begins with this premise, then the question, “Who created it?” becomes unnecessary. However, as the evidence began to accumulate against the theory, Penzias admitted:

·       The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand. (https://crossexamined.org/god-and-the-astronomers/)

Robert Jastrow was the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a professor at Columbia University, and the director emeritus of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.  Here is one of his observations:

·       When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. My views on this question are close to those of Darwin, who wrote, "My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I see no evidence of beneficent design in the details." (God and the Astronomers (1978), Ch. 1: In the Beginning)

Yet, it turns out that Jastrow does see scientific evidence for the existence of God. After strongly asserting his agnosticism, in one interview, he admitted:

·       …that scientific evidence (including Hubble’s discoveries) pointed quite clearly to the existence of a supernatural Creator. Yet, the materialistic philosophy he had long embraced rebelled at such a conclusion. He ended with an admission...: “I’m in a completely hopeless bind.” https://thejohn1010project.com/blog/2018/05/17/god-and-the-astronomer/

Why the bind? Simply this: Jastrow remains committed to a naturalistic world view but sees the evidence pointing to ID. In God and the Astronomers, Jastrow also acknowledged that naturalism had failed to account for the evidence:

·       At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (p. 116; p. 107 in 1992 edition)

This seems to rule out the possibility that the universe or any part of it could serve as our first cause. However, I think that the logical evidence against an always-existing-universe is even more damning. If the universe is eternal, it means that an infinite number of years would have needed to pass to ever arrive in the now, the present. This passage of time is a logical impossibility. Therefore, whatever is eternal—the first cause—must lie outside of the time-space-matter continuum. The first cause must transcend time, and this is exactly the portrait that the Bible presents of the Creator God.

·       For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” (Isaiah 57:15 ESV)

As a last resort, Russell asserted, “The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.” Critics might just as easily retort that the idea is due not so much to a poverty of our imagination as it is to a multitude of observations. So, perhaps there is a reality beyond our feeble imagination and even our logic. We live, believe, and make our decisions based upon the very limited knowledge that we possess at any given moment. We have nothing else. But to be responsible with our limited knowledge, experience, and the findings of science, we are obliged to conclude that the phenomena of this world do have both a beginning and a cause.