This essay was written as background information for a seminar I gave on apologetics at Summer Wine 2001 and 2002. Consequently, it is not written as formally as some of my other essays.
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on two assumptions, and then the logical consequence of those assumptions.
- Anything that begins must have a cause
- The universe began
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
We will now justify these two assumptions, and examine the consequence.
Anything that begins must have a cause
This assumption is more commonly known as the principle of 'cause and effect'. If something happens, something else must have caused it to happen. One of contemporary philosophy's most prominent atheists, Kai Nielsen, once said: "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang, and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."
David Hume (possibly history's greatest sceptic) said: "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."
This assumption fits very nicely with the laws of physics, in particular with Newton's first and third laws. Newton's first law can be stated as: 'an object will move at a constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force'. This means that there is no change in an object's velocity unless something forces it to change. For a change in the object's velocity to occur, there must have been some cause.
Newton's third law is: 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. This is stating the assumption in reverse, by saying that a cause must have a result.
This assumption simply means that things do not just magically appear - something must have caused them to happen. It is worth noting that the vast majority of people have no problem accepting this assumption as being true.
The universe began
For a long time, the belief held by most atheists was that the universe had no beginning. This is known as the steady-state theory of the universe, and it holds that the universe has always existed, and will always continue to exist.
Unfortunately for atheists, this theory has little support from modern science. In 1965, two scientists named Penzias and Wilson discovered background radiation in the universe, allowing us to date the universe to having a definite starting point around 14 billion years ago (plus or minus several billion years). For the purpose of this argument, however, the date of the starting point is irrelevant. All we are arguing here is that the universe began, and it makes no difference whether it was 100 trillion years ago or 8000 years ago.
Today, the big-bang theory of the universe points to an event that started the universe. It says that originally all the matter of the universe was compressed together, and an explosion of energy caused it to spread out and form the universe as we know it today. But all the matter was not just squashed together - it was compressed to a point of infinite density. Density can be calculated using the formula p = m / V (where p is density, m is mass, and V is volume).
Rearranging this formula gives: V = m / p. If we take the mathematical limit of this equation as - approaches infinity, this gives a volume of zero. If the universe began from a point of infinite density, it was created out of nothing. This corresponds very closely with the book of Genesis where it says that God created the universe out of nothing.
Furthermore, Einstein's theory of general relativity (for which there is extensive evidence) shows that matter, space, and time are all linked together. The consequence of this is that if the universe began, space and time also had a beginning.
This is also supported by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, and the second law says that the everything is moving from a state of order to disorder, or that the amount of useful energy in the universe is reducing. The universe is running down. This indicates a point in the finite past where the universe was 'wound up'. If the universe had no starting point, then it should have already run down completely.
Therefore the universe had a cause
So, if the universe began, it must have had a cause. Now this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being.
It must be uncaused because we know that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless, or eternal, and changeless, because it was the creator of time (at least causally before it created time). In addition, because it also created space, it must transcend space and therefore be immaterial rather than physical in nature. This further implies that this being is separate from its creation, not a part of it.
This consequence rules out a large number of worldviews right from the outset. Atheism is no longer a valid option, as some supernatural being must exist so that the universe could be created. It rules out Buddhism (and its many derivatives) since Buddhism denies the existence of this sort of God. It rules out Hinduism and many others because this result shows that the supernatural being must be separate from creation, contrary to the claims of Hinduism. It actually rules out any non-monotheistic worldview, leaving us with just Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. We cannot determine which one of those three is true from this argument, but it does remove many options from consideration.
Summary
We start with two assumptions:
- Anything that begins must have a cause
- The universe began
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
This cause must be:
- Uncaused
- Changeless
- Timeless (at least prior to creation)
- Immaterial
This conclusion would appear to rule out any world-view except for Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
A number of sources were drawn on for this essay, particularly:
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Moody Press, 1994
- Norman Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, Baker Books, 2001
- Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1988
- Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, Zondervan, 2000
Comments
"It must be uncaused because we know that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes."
You have violated your first assumption. You assume there has only been one ever universe, ,one ever creator and that time has only ever created once. I don't think any of these assumtions are warranted.
"Atheism is no longer a valid option, as some supernatural being must exist so that the universe could be created."
I don't see that this necessarily follows. It is one possible explanation. There are other possible physical explanations that do not involve supernatural beings.
"It actually rules out any non-monotheistic worldview, leaving us with just Islam, Judaism, and Christianity."
It seems to be that your arguments have shown that non-monotheistic world views are just as likely as mon-theistic world views- and just as unlikely.
First of all I should clarify that the "Big Bang" was not an explosion in the same way a bomb is. Space and time itself expanded, and so there is little meaning in asking what occurred before the big bang.
I too am interested in which of the axioms you state are faulty, as they obviously cannot both be true. My guess is that something can come from nothing. I have a model for the early universe in which conservation of energy is not true, and which would also explain the lack of observed antimatter.
Potentially I think there is room for a being on the outside looking in, but there is no requirement for one. I don't think comparisons to religions are of much value unless you have prior knowledge that one of them is correct. The question I would have from a scientific point of view would be to ask what kinds of prediction you can make? Does the Bible improve our understanding of the mechanism of the beginning of the universe, or are you just saying "goddidit"?
Atheism is about not accepting that kind of answer, and rather insisting that questions be answered by observation; and failing that an admission that we simply cannot know.