To be sincere, I have done very little study on the Cosmological Argument. Thus, I am quite unqualified to refute, in depth, this argument. However, I have given it a few moment’s thought, and I have decided that it seems erroneous to assume the possible of an uncaused cause.
Below, you will see the argument that I feel refutes the cosmological argument.
-
1. If an uncaused cause is the result of itself, then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is impossible to have the occurrence of a cause.(Premise)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3
It would seem possible that, despite my limited metaphysical knowledge, that if there exist nothing (nothing meaning: no time, energy, or space), then there are no possible causes to bring about an effect. This is supported by the fact that if God is an uncaused cause, as the cosmological argument proves, then God caused himself out of nothing. I say nothing because that is exactly what had to have happened. You see an uncaused cause has to be free of all possible actions of other causes, which includes time, space, and energy. Therefore, with out the existence of any of the previous how is it possible that an uncaused could have caused it self?
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 29, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Brody
I think that may be a slight distortion of one of the premises in the normal formulation of the cosmological argument, namely “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. This formulation is important because we know (or at least most of us have a sinking suspicion) that the universe began at a specific moment in spacetime, but God does not have this sort of contingency. God did not begin to exist; He has simply always existed (divine aseity).
Oddly, I think this articulates why I think the cosmological argument is in fact strong – one is forced into the dilemma of an infinite regress of causes or formulating one thing which has always existed (which is God for some, matter for others).
March 29, 2007 at 2:30 pm
john
Brody,
Thank you for that comment. I think that what many forget when we speak of God is the notion of time. Astrophysicsts theorize that outside our universe exist other possible parallel universes, or a void (that is a area with not space or time). I think that it is possible to say that God exist in this “void” and that he is free from time, thus, free from any explication of causal chains or infinite regresses. I think that also explains your point about him always existing.
Best,
John
March 29, 2007 at 11:07 pm
katyjane
You realize that logic only works if your premises are right, right?
And while your premises may be “true by definition,” if they nevertheless do not reflect reality, then all you’re doing is an exercise in semantics?
March 29, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Kullervo
Whoops- that was me using someone else’s computer, and once again forgetting to log them out and log myself in.
March 30, 2007 at 12:12 am
Brody
That’s actually quite untrue: logic “works” even for meaningless phrases (for instance, the syllogism “All blinkins are noddles; all noddles are snorks; therefore, all blinkins are snorks” is a logically valid argument, even though its soundness is unverifiable without meaningful referents for the premises).
March 30, 2007 at 4:08 am
john
Kullervo,
Brody has a point. If an argument follows a logical pattern, and retains its validity, then it is a logical argument. However, soundness is a different matter.
You could correct me, but it would seem that the argument is sound. The only objection that I can see would be found in P1. This objection would be dealing with ex nihilo concept. However, I think that to object to P1 one would have to attempt to explain if a self-cause is possible when no other resistances or causes exist.
Best,
John
March 30, 2007 at 4:52 am
Brody
Actually, there is one rather fatal flaw in the antecedent of the first conditional premise: “an uncaused cause is the result of itself”. By saying “is the result of itself”, you are implying causation, which negates the idea of it being an uncaused cause. This is why I prefer the formulation I gave earlier: divine aseity is about being, not causation, and so we say the first cause exists necessarily but is not itself caused by anything (since that’s pretty much the definition of first cause).
March 30, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Kullervo
Then excuse me for using the wrong teminology. The logic may indeed “work,” but that doesn’t mean that the conclusion accurately reflects reality.
March 30, 2007 at 1:01 pm
John
Brody,
That seems to be true. I think, to avoid any attempts in self-result explications of causation, it would be more effective to change the first premise.
1. If an uncaused cause came into existence, then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (Premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is impossible to have the occurrence of a cause.(Premise)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3
By deleting the previous, and adding the current phrase “came to existence” we avoid any causation debate and still keep proper flow in the argument.
I think that your formulation is very clear. However, the term aseity brings up some discussion about how aseity is used to describe one who is the Ultimate Being. God is said to possess aseity, since He was
not created, but rather always existed. He has the power of being within Himself, and nothing can exist without Him.
Some philosophers have difficulty with the term always existed and Uncaused cause . The term also refers to God being self-derived, which, is to say the he is independent from all other things in terms of is existence. To be self-derived brings about the idea of possible self-actualization. However, from a purely theological view it is generally understood as you have explained it.
Thanks for the great comment.
John
March 30, 2007 at 1:11 pm
john
Kullervo,
In situations that are attempting to describe the metaphysical or abstract thought –”reality” is considered as relative to the thought. The cosmological argument cannot be proven by empirical methods to become what we call ‘reality,’ and nor can my argument; however, the argument provides a compelling case against the cosmological argument.
If this argument is actually valid and sound while remaining Logically tight (after I finish some work on it) it could possibly become another compelling objection to the cosmological argument.
best,
John
March 30, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Brody
Kullervo, you’re talking about soundness (the validity of an argument coupled with verifiably true premises), and argumentation is very important because you can have true premises and still yield a false conclusion if you argue improperly. It also is a useful exercise because premises may or may not be agreed upon by parties involved in debate; if a stalemate occurs, then each party has a rationally defensible position dependent on the truth of one or more disputed premises.
John, I still find your change problematic based on the maxim I mentioned in my first comment: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Granted, some philosophers think this is problematic, but as an epistemic rule, it generally works pretty well unless you have good reason to believe it untrue or that the first cause would be an exception. Again, this is without the consideration of aseity; that is simply a way of connecting the dots of philosophy and theology.
March 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm
john
Brody,
).
I agree that it is a epistimic rule, and that it is quite commonly accepted as true. Notwithstanding the previous, I think it is good to connect theology and philosophy (esp. in ethics
Thank you for your insightful comments they are a great addition to this blog, and my own personal study.
Best,
John
April 3, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Joe
I don’t want to take issue with the Brody’s reformulation of the argument, but I think a proponent of the cosmological argument for God’s existence may choose an alternative route because of the worries one might have over God’s “omnipresence”.
The proponent could agree that God always has existed. But what does that mean? It could be that God is infinite or that God is everlasting. If God is infinite, then God is outside time. If God is everlasting, then God is in time but didn’t begin to exist and won’t stop existing. The distinction is a sticky issue, and the proponent of the cosmological argument might want an alternative way out.
The proponent may just agree with Aquinas in thinking that a first efficient cause must exist. That first efficient cause is God, and God created everything out of nothing.
April 3, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Brody
I don’t know that those are necessarily problems for the cosmological argument, which is at its core purely philosophical. The problem is that once you’ve concluded that the universe requires a first cause, most people will want to make some more statements about Who (or even What) the first cause is, and that’s when we have to tackle the theological problems (assuming that we posit God in the vein of typical theism or even deism).
Also, Joe, do you mean omnipotence rather than omnipresence? I think omnipresence has its own difficulties, but that issue hadn’t seem to come up yet (unless you’re making connections between divine timelessness and omnipresence based on the modern notion of spacetime).
December 15, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Idetrorce
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
January 4, 2008 at 12:07 am
Josh
Maybe Joe means omniscience rather than the previous two. Just a thought
February 2, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Lisa
I think your reasoning is flawed, I understand everything you mean, but if “there was nothing in existence, then it is impossible to have the occurrence of a cause,” then how was time and the earth created? By using this as an argument, you’re rejecting the existence of life, are you not?
February 8, 2008 at 1:59 am
john
I don’t quite understand what you are getting at. Earth and time both have causes. However, theologically speaking God is an “uncaused cause” or a being that just is. If that is the case then is it possible that God just became? If so, then he must have self created himself or was caused by himself, however, if he did not exist prior , then how did he self create. I dont know if this is an logical possibility or not, but it seems very unreasonable. I a merely stating that: if God is a begin that was caused out of nothing (EX nIHLO), then there must be some explanation , if that is possible, to how that occurred.
August 4, 2008 at 8:10 am
josh
Wait a minute, the cosmological argument states that God was not caused at all. He has always been. There is no room for a time frame in which he became. He did not become. He has always been.