Skip to content

June 17, 2011

3

Arguments for the Existence of God: Cosmological

by juju2112

People often wonder, “Why are we here?” Not just why are we here in this canyon, but why are we here, in this universe? How did everything come to be? The question pops up most famously in the form of an argument for the existence of God known as the “First Cause” argument.

The argument goes like this:

  1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
  2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
  3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
  4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
  5. Therefore, God exists.

So, basically, you assume that everything that exists in the world was caused by something (even the things that caused the other things). If you could trace this chain of causation backwards through time, you would see that it can’t go back forever. It all had to have started somewhere. Something must have caused everything to begin with. Theists cause this something “God”.

Criticisms

There are a number of problems with this argument.

  • Why can’t something have existed forever?

I have yet to hear a good reason why something can’t have existed forever. Who’s to say there isn’t an infinite chain of causes and effects stretching backwards in time? Just because we have a problem imagining infinity, we’re going to say it’s impossible?

The Big Bang theory is often brought up by theists to try to back up the premise that the universe had a beginning. This is not what the theory says, however. It says there was a gigantic explosion. Scientists don’t know what happened before the big bang because all the evidence was erased in the explosion. Anything could have been around before then. We just don’t know.

  • Who created God?

Who created God? Was there another God that created the God of our universe? Are there an infinite number of Gods creating Gods? And if God doesn’t need to have a creator, why the hell not? How come he gets to be the exception to rule #1? If there can be a thing that doesn’t need a cause to exist, why not just let the universe be that thing?

  • Who’s to say this first cause was a God?

Maybe the first cause was an unintelligent phenomenon? Maybe it was something we’re unaware of but doesn’t listen to our thoughts at all? Maybe it’s not omnipotent after all? Why assume omnipotence and all-powerful intelligence?

We’re trying to explain the complexity of the universe, and this just adds even more complexity that would need to be explained. Where did this God come from? What is it made of? Where does it reside? How did it come to be? If the first cause was just a speck of dust, does it still deserve to be worshipped?

All the first cause argument does is push the questions up one level into a region where we’re comfortable not knowing the answers. To be fair, I don’t think anyone actually believes in God because of this argument. I think they believe because they want to believe. This is just what people come up with when they try to use reason to defend their faith.

(Photo by Matt Cavanagh)
Advertisements
Read more from Miscellaneous Rants
3 Comments Post a comment
  1. Udaybhanu Chitrakar
    Jun 23 2011

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
    – Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
    “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
    – Stephen Hawking in the same book.

    Here three questions can be asked:
    1) Which one came first, universe, or laws of gravity and quantum theory?
    2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the laws of gravity and quantum theory?
    3) If the laws of gravity and quantum theory came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum theory and laws of gravity. These two together can be called Hawking’s “Unconscious God”. Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking’s unconscious God?

    Reply
    • juju2112
      Jun 23 2011

      Are you asking me to defend Stephen Hawking’s positions? I am no scientist. I think this point you bring up is indicative of a critical flaw in theist thinking. Theists often think if we can’t thoroughly explain something, that proves God exists.

      I’ve got news for you. Saying “God exists” is a truth claim that needs evidence of its own before we should believe it. Hearing the phrase “I don’t know how that works” is not sufficient justification for believing in God. It just means we don’t know.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Articles. « Loftier Musings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: