-7-
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
• The cosmological argument can traced back to earlier Greek philosophy; it has been formulated and defended by many philosophers and theologians in different philosophical and theological traditions.
• The cosmological argument starts with the bare existence of a/
the universe .
• The argument has two different versions: The argument from contingency (of the universe) and the argument from the temporal beginning of the universe. These are, in other words, the atemporal and the temporal versions of the argument respectively.
The Argument from Contingency
• The existence of the world is not necessary, but a contingent.
• No contingent being can exist by itself. It needs a sufficient reason (a cause) other than itself for its existence. Otherwise, it cannot exist.
• If such a cause is itself contingent, it will equally need a further cause for its existence.
• Given that an infinite regress of contingent causes cannot provide a full causal explanation and that it is impossible for contingent beings to cause each other in a circular manner, there must a cause outside of the series of the contingent beings.
• Such a condition can be satisfied only if the causal chain ends in a necessary being.
This is the First Cause/ God.
Leibniz and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
• In this version the argument the key role is given to Leibniz’s «the principle of sufficient reason».
• Since the non-existence of the universe is conceivable, we have to look for a sufficient reason for its existence.
• «Why is there something rather than nothing?»
• This question is still valid even if we assume that the universe does not have a temporal beginning.
• The cause of the existence of the universe has to be a necessary being
outside the world. Or else, there will be no explanation for the existence
of the universe.
Objection
• Objection:
• Let's assume that the universe has no temporal beginning and that every part of it is contingent. If we explain each part, wouldn't that be enough explanation? In
other words, once the existence each contingent being in the universe is
explained, do we need to assume that there is a cause of the universe as a whole?
• This objection however seems to have missed the point. What matters is not the explanation of a particular contingent fact in the world, but the very contingency of the universe as such. Given that the non-existence of the world as a whole is conceivable, then the question is: why should there such a universe at all?
• Even if we explain each of the entities in the series by reference to a previous
cause, the question of why these entities exist still seems to cry for an explanation.
The Temporal Version: The
Kalam Cosmological Argument
• This version of the argument basically draws on the idea that the universe has a temporal beginning.
• It was defended by al-Kindi, al-Ghazali and other Muslim theologians, in the contemporary philosophy of religion, the argument is known as
«The Kalâm Cosmological Argument»:
• Premise 1:Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
• Premise 2:The universe began to exist.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.
Temporal Beginning of the Universe
• The crucial premise in this argument is premise 2. What reasons are for thinking that the universe has a temporal beginning?
• Basically two types of reasons are put forward: (1) The a priori reasons for thinking the universe cannot have an infinite past given the impossibility of the actual infinite. Otherwise, nothing (a day for example) could have been added to it. (2) The a posteriori reasons for the temporal beginning of the universe such as Big Bang.
• Given that the existence of the universe needs an explanation, the
cosmological argument certainly seems to be good explanation for the existence of the universe if no better explanation is provided.
