The Cosmological Argument has been around for centuries. Some of the more important proponents of it are St. Thomas Aquinas and Samuel Clarke. The essential premise of this argument is that there must be a cause for everything. The world exists, and since the world exists, it had to come from somewhere.
Everything that currently exists has a cause. The causes for things that exist also had a cause before that. And those causes, likewise, had causes of their own. This string of causes could go on and on and on, but eventually, there has to be an original cause. For example: An apple tree was “caused” by a seed. This seed came out of an apple. This apple came from totally different apple tree. This process can be said to have been happening for thousands or even millions of years, but the first seed had to come from somewhere. We can say this about all forms of life and all objects in the universe. Everything that is finite (has a beginning and end) must have some sort of cause.
Since it is unreasonable to say that finite things have always existed, we must determine an original cause. The Cosmological Argument calls for an original cause that is eternal and has always existed and never had, nor needed, a cause of its own. Since it is necessary to have some sort of original cause, it is very likely that some sort of infinite God is the cause of all finite things.
A popular Atheist response to the Cosmological Argument is the Big Bang. This theory states that with a giant flash, the entire universe exploded into being. I think it is important to note that this theory is the best attempt to explain the world without God. The people who created it and hold to it begin by not believing in God, and are trying to find a way to explain the Universe’s origins. While I suppose one could hold to this argument, I just do not see the rational in thinking that gigantic stars, planets, and other things that exist exploded out of nothingness. Another problem with this argument is that if the Universe did begin with an explosion, the Universe should be spreading out at a slower and slower rate. But, the Universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, and this makes an explosion at the beginning much less likely.
Either you can believe that all things mysteriously appeared out of a giant explosion (although, one must wonder where the explosion itself came from) or you can believe that there is an infinite God, who has always existed, and who created the world. It seems rational to me, then, to believe in God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Oh what fun!
ReplyDeleteEither God or Big Bang? That's a false dichotomy. Numerous other things could be posited instead.
From a strict logic point of view, the first cause argument is BS.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Whoppee! We have a first cause. Where did god come in again? Oh yeah, you just kind of slipped him in when you assumed it must be God.
This response still does not explain what the first cause is. If it was not God, what was it? And God was not "just kind of slipped in," He was put there because He is an infinite being who has always existed. Therefore, it is possible for him to be the first cause.
ReplyDelete-TRG
Is there anything wrong with saying, "I have no idea what the first cause was if it is indeed necessary?" Seeing as you are not defending a deist conception of God (the first cause and nothing more kind of God) you can't really plug in a Biblical God as a conclusion. That takes further argumentation. And saying that no other explanation exists is really just an argument from ignorance. We shouldn't take any explanation just because a good one is unavailable.
ReplyDeleteNow maybe you will argue more for why it has to be the biblical God that is the first cause, but you can't conclude He is the first cause from your argument.
As for the false dichotomy at the very end of the original post, there is a quite serious third option. Believe neither. If neither of the two options are supported rationally, then do not believe either one of them. Withhold belief, be agnostic.
No, there is nothing wrong with saying you have no idea what the first cause is. But, there still must have been a first cause. Since the odds of life coming from non-life are so extremely slim, I think there is good reason to believe God was behind it. Obviously we were not there, and we cannot know how it happened. But because we know that there had to have been a first cause, it is not irrational to believe God was the first cause.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right, this does little to prove the Biblical God as the true God. But that is why there are many posts on this blog and more to come. When we see particular attributes displaying themselves throughout the world and history, it is possible to connect them. And I think this first cause argument is just one of the dots that we must connect in understanding if God exists and who the true God is.
-TRG.