The Cosmological Argument & Conclusions

There's no proof that God exists!


If I had a nickel for every time an atheist says that, I'm sure I'd be rich.  My experience is, though, that this statement simply isn't true.  Today, I'd like to share one of my favorite reasons why: the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument--and show just how far the implications of this argument can go.

Basic Argument:
The Cosmological Argument has three parts:

1. Everything that has a beginning to its existence has an external cause.
2. The universe has a beginning to its existence.
3. Therefore the universe has an external cause.

The evidence for the premises is pretty extensive.  The first premise is supported by common knowledge.  Everyone knows that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  If you heard a loud bang and asked what caused it, you would be very surprised, and also very dubious, if someone replied, "Oh, those just happen.  Nothing causes them."  Though no one may know the cause (and no one may care) you would certainly know that a cause existed.  You would be equally frustrated if the person replied, "Oh, actually, that bang caused itself."  Now, that's just silly.  Logically, the cause of a thing cannot be the thing itself.  An oak tree may grow in the forest from the acorn of another oak tree, but it does not grow from one of its own acorns (except perhaps in science fiction where the tree might produce a logical paradox by going back in time and planting itself with one of it's own acorns).

The second premise is supported by the scientific evidence provided by the study of our universe.  There are several sorts of evidence showing this.  The first is the expansion of the universe.  The universe is now known to be expanding in all directions at high speed.  Given this fact, scientists conclude that the universe must have been smaller in the past, and that in the distant past the universe must have been shrunk down to an infinitesimally tiny point, that it must have had a beginning to its own existence and all this expanding at the Big Bang.  This is the most widely accepted scenario, but all scientists do agree that the universe is not eternal.  It has a beginning.  A second point of evidence, more often ignored, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that any system, left to its own devices, tends to accumulate more entropy (disorder, randomness, and chaos).  I have heard some people try to dodge the Second Law by claiming it only applies to closed systems, but that is ridiculous.  We can observe that the Second Law applies to every system we can observe and we have yet to observe a system which violates it--hence the term "law."  We cannot observe any actual closed systems, since it is impossible (or at least nearly impossible) to create one: no matter how well we insulate an environment, there will be some movement of heat, energy, or material with the outside world, preventing the system from ever being truly closed--and yet the Second Law will still apply to it.  In any case, the Second Law, when applied to the universe, demands at least that the universe have a beginning.  If the universe was eternal, then the Second Law would have had an infinite amount of time to fill it with infinite entropy (which thankfully, it hasn't).  Therefore, the universe must have a beginning.

From these premises, the conclusion follows naturally.  If all things which have a beginning to their existence must have an external cause, and the universe has a beginning to its existence, then the inescapable conclusion is that the universe too has an external cause.  A Christian would assert that this cause is God.

Objections

At this point, atheists assert a number of objections.  One of the most common is that the cosmological argument requires that God also have a cause, or a god who created God.  This is a reductio ad absurdum argument.  The atheist attempts to reduce the cosmological argument to so much mush by showing that it proves God must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on and so forth:

1. Everything which begins to exist has an external cause
2. God has a beginning to His existence
3. Therefore God has an external cause

Unfortunately, this attempt is, in itself, absurd.  The universe is defined as the sum of all space-time and matter-energy, all of which are known to have had a beginning.  As stated above, the cause of the universe, must be external to the universe since the universe cannot cause itself to exist.  To put it another way, the cause of space-time must exist beyond space-time.  Things which exist beyond time cannot have a beginning, since a beginning requires time to be meaningful.  Furthermore, the definition of God as used by Christians is an eternal (beginningless) being.  It would be a contradiction in terms to say that God has a beginning.  Thus, the atheist  argument for a cause of God falls apart.

1. Everything which has a beginning to its existence has an external cause--> Proven by common knowledge.
2. God has a beginning to His existence--> Glaring error: contradiction in terms!  By definition, God and/or the cause of the universe cannot have a beginning to His/their existence.
3. Therefore God has an external cause--> Rejected due to invalidation of premise 2

Most often, atheists try to get around this problem by trying a reformulation of the Cosmological Argument, hoping it will be one to which God will not be immune and one in which they can trap and prove illogical His existence:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God exists.
3. Therefore God has a cause.

The problem with this reformulation is that it substantially changes the Cosmological Argument.  Usually the atheist tries to act as though the reformulated premise 1 is identical and interchangeable with the original first premise, but it isn't.  Not everything that exists has a cause: only things which have a beginning to their existence have causes!  Logically things with beginnings are the only things which can have causes.  Imagine I took you out to see a magical bridge over a river and told you that this bridge had always existed, and in fact somehow proved that it was so.  Would you then ask me how that bridge came to be, what caused it?  If you did, I would know for certain that you had rejected my statement that the bridge had no beginning: for only things which have a beginning can have a cause.

At this point, the atheist will object that only God is proposed as having a beginningless existence and will try to dismiss the argument as a theistic ploy.  However, this is simply not true.  While there are no magical eternal bridges over rivers, there are a great many things that have always been around, or at least very probably have always existed.  The first set of things is the rules of logic.  The rules of logic exist: we prove that every time we appeal to them as meaningful things in our arguments and daily lives.  The rules of logic exist, and therefore square circles and eight-sided triangles cannot.  Furthermore, the rules of logic do not have a beginning.  There has never been a time when square circles and eight-sided triangles have been free to exist, because the rules of logic have always been in existence.  The Cosmological Argument itself assumes this, because if logic had a beginning and that beginning was before the existence of the universe, then there can be no logical argument (nor any speculation) about the beginning of the universe.  If the rules of logic began to exist at some point, then we might as well say that the universe worblestattled into flummox without a cause, first taking the shape of a giant pink-and-green polka-dotted rabbit--because all logic and reason goes right out the window.  Fortunately for this blog however, logic exists and has no beginning.  The physical laws of the universe also, though at one time lacking anything to operate on, are also unanimously accepted as existing (you aren't floating as you read this: gravity exists) and having no beginning (when the first particles of matter were created in the universe, they were attracted to each other by gravity--though driven apart by still greater forces).  Additional examples may be found, such as moral law, but I have gone on long enough to prove my point:

1. Everything that exists has a cause-->Only things with a beginning can logically have a cause.  A great many things that exist do not have beginnings.  Therefore the number of exceptions to this premise invalidate it.
2. God exists.-->You'll get no argument from me on that one!
3. Therefore God has a cause-->Conclusion invalidated by refutation of first premise.

Another objection is that if God exists--even uncaused--the Cosmological Argument shoots itself in the foot.  After all, God must have decided at some point to create the universe.  This decision must have had a beginning and thus been proceeded by a number of other thoughts, factors and causes, stretching back infinitely.  Since many who hold to the Kalam Cosmological Argument also hold that an actual infinity cannot exist, the atheist uses this to shoot the argument down, since applying it to the thoughts of God results in an actual infinite.

There are two problems with this approach, however.  First of all, it ignores the fact that a meaningful beginning requires time.  In deciding to create the universe, God could not have had any temporal thought of creating it, and thus none of His thoughts would have had a meaningful beginning.  Some atheists try to get around this by admitting that, while God's thoughts wouldn't have had a beginning in time (since time did not exist), they would have at least proceeded one another in logical terms.  After all, I can say, "Because triangles are three-sided shapes, an eight-sided triangle cannot exist" and the thoughts proceed one another without requiring time.  Unfortunately, the Cosmological Argument does not apply to such relationships.  While the invalidation of eight-sided triangles may have a beginning in the realm of logic, it does not have a temporal beginning (a very different kind of beginning), and that kind of beginning is the only kind the Cosmological Argument can speak to.  So, whether there were proceeding thoughts or no, the Cosmological Argument would have no bearing on them.

Finally, an atheist may object that the cosmological argument is comparing apples to oranges.  Since the universe is the set of all space, time, matter, and energy, the argument goes, it is not a "thing."  Only "things" which begin to exist require causes.  Since the set is not a member of itself, atheists feel free to arbitrarily exempt it from the logical implications of having a beginning.  Unfortunately, the universe itself defeats this approach, by behaving in every way exactly like its members.  Its members are subject to natural law, and so is it.  A rock (a member of the universe), if thrown upward, will experience the force of gravity pulling it back down. Similarly, the universe (the set of all its members) also experiences gravity, to the extent that sufficient gravity would be able to halt its expansion and pull it back down.  Its members are also subject to the rules of logic--which is why the universe contains no square circles or ever-popular eight-sided triangles. The universe itself is also subject to the same rules--and thus cannot be shaped like a square circle or an eight-sided triangle.  This subjection to the rules of logic is the most important, since the Cosmological Argument is logic.  If the universe behaves in a way subject to the rules of logic in the same way as its individual members behave, then we can indeed call it a "thing" since it behaves like a thing, and thus it will remain subject to the Cosmological Argument.  It's beginning will not be an exception: it too will have an external cause.

Implications

Since the Cosmological Argument stands firm in asserting that the universe has a cause external to itself, some atheists will accept it and yet still resist identifying the cause as God.  At first, this is very logical.  After all, the Cosmological Argument's simple premises do not say anything except that an external cause to the universe exists.  They do not readily identify that cause as the God of Christianity.  However, the logical implications of the argument can do just that.

To start, we can look at the implications of the last part of the conclusion: the universe has a cause external to itself.  This means that the cause must exist beyond time, space, matter, and energy.  To put it another way, the cause must be eternal (not bound by time), omnipresent (not bound by space), non-corporeal (not bound by matter), and omnipotent (not  bound by energy).

Consider first the common atheist assertion that the cause of the universe was a set of pre-existing conditions or a mindless impersonal force.  In both situations, the resulting situation is the same.  If the cause of the universe is simply a mindless creative power, then that power would have existed eternally beyond time.  Since this power would have no will to restrain it or send it forth, it would immediately create the universe.  It would be the same as turning on a light switch and screwing in a lightbulb into its socket.  The electric circuit has no will, so as soon as it is capable of turning on the lightbulb, it will.  Since the impersonal force would have existed eternally, it would have been eternally capable of creating the universe and would have, as a result, created it in eternity past.  The result is a lightbulb that has always been on, a universe that has always existed.  Yet, of course, we know that the universe has not always existed: it has a beginning.  Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be a mindless force or a set of preconditions: it must have a free will which can equally choose to create or not create the universe.  Only in this situation does the non-eternal existence of the universe make sense, since it is not logically necessary for a being with such free will to immediately choose to create the universe, or to choose to create the universe at all.  In this case, (going back to the light switch and the light bulb) it is equally possible for the electric circuit to be opened or closed and therefore the circuit can be capable of turning on the lightbulb, but not do so.

So, the cause must have enormous power and must have incredible freedom of will.  But is the cause intelligent?  For answer, we can look at the universe it has caused.  This universe contains information in the form of DNA (lots and lots of information).  So far as we know, all information has an intelligent source.  We cannot conceive of any set of coded information which would not have an intelligent source.  If it didn't have an intelligent source, it wouldn't be information.  An example of its unanimous assumption in play is the search for extra-terrestrial life.  We scan the skies for radio signals (a form of information).  If we find a signal, but show that it has a non-intelligent source (such as a quasar), we say that it's not actually a signal, it's not information.  So, if the universe contains information in the form of DNA codes, then these--however they were actually produced--must have an intelligent source.  Thus, the cause of this information-containing universe must be intelligent.

So, we have an intelligent, self-sovereign being who is omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent, and non-corporeal as the proven cause of the universe.  That, I think is enough to conclude that this cause is some kind of god: though what kind it does not exactly say.  Further investigation, however, can narrow the field.

Consider, for instance, the question of whether this god is good or evil.  A good answer to this question goes back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Much of what we consider evil (decay, death, chaos, destruction) is scientifically considered entropy.  According to the Second Law, the entropy of the universe is increasing.  That means that, when the universe first began, it had much less, or even no, entropy.  The universe began in a very good state.  Since evil creates evil and good creates good, it is logical to conclude that the god who caused the universe was entirely or at least mostly good.  To assume the former makes much sense of moral law.  A perfectly moral being can serve as a source of moral law, anchoring its existence.

If we assume a perfectly good god, can we still wind up with the Deist's god, who exists but refuses to reveal himself?  I do not think so.  One of the properties of goodness is to take proper care of one's things.  God created the universe, therefore it is his thing.  If he were not to take care of it, he would not be a good god.  Thus, this perfectly good god must be involved in the universe.

How then can we justify this conclusion with the fact that evil continues to persist in our universe, and, in many cases goes on unpunished?  If this god is perfectly moral he must also be perfectly just.  He must punish all wrongdoing.  Not all wrongdoing is punished in this observable life.  Therefore, a further unobserved existence (an afterlife) must exist wherein this god must punish wrongdoing.  To what extent does he do this?  Well, since all of us break our moral codes, and fall far short of any perfect objective moral code, we must conclude that this justice in the afterlife will be severe and that all of us will be subject to it.  At first, there seems to be no way out of it.

However, one of the properties of perfect morality is love, compassion, and mercy.  If god demonstrates perfect justice, he must also demonstrate these properties perfectly as well.  This puts god in a paradox.  First of all, these are all relational properties: how can a god display them in eternal existence if alone?  The only solution is if God, by Himself, is not alone, if He is, as Christianity puts forth, a Trinity.  Second, if God must be perfectly merciful and perfectly just to us, how can he at the same time punish our wrongdoing and pardon our sin?  The only possible answer is if some form of substitution can be made.  If someone volunteers to and is able to take punishment for all of our wrongdoing, then we may be pardoned on this one's behalf.  The only one able to bear such infinite punishment and the only one normally exempt from punishment Himself is God.  Ingeniously, the first solution solves the second problem.  If God is in relationship with Himself as a Trinity, then one of the members of the Trinity is capable of voluntarily performing a substitution on behalf of us and all Creation for God Himself.  If such a substitution were to be performed (which logically it would be required, given the present state of the universe and the proven state of God), then it would not be automatically applied to all against their will.  After all, any substitution requires the agreement of all three parties: the two original parties (the accused and the judge) and the third party (the substitute).  The substitute cannot decide to give himself the punishment and call it even if the judge and the accused don't agree to it.  Neither can the judge substitute the third party against his will, nor can a substitution agreed upon by the judge and the third party go into affect if the accused refuses it.  So, the situation stands so: God, the judge, and God, the substitute, have both agreed to the substitution since it is the only way to uphold His justice and His mercy simultaneously.  Most of us, however, have not yet agreed, and there is no guarantee we will.  We are perfectly free to refuse, since making the offer and being willing to uphold it is what maintains God's perfect morality--it is not contingent on us accepting it.  On the other hand, we are perfectly free to accept God's offer, if we do so, we receive the mercy of God in the afterlife rather than his justice...and that is the gospel from the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its implications.