The Problem With The Cosmological Argument

[T. Scott Morgan]

The Cosmological Argument is one of the more popular arguments presented today for the existence of a god. In this essay I’d like to briefly explain why I think the argument is very much overrated, and ultimately even unsuccessful.

The Cosmological Argument is an argument that seeks to prove the existence of a god by demonstrating that the universe came into existence via a First Cause or Uncaused Cause. There are various versions of the argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a more concise version that was developed in light of the Big Bang theory. This is the version I will be focusing on in this essay, although any version of the argument would include some form of the premise I think is in question.

I want to point out a fatal flaw in the argument that Christian apologists (and even some atheists) tend to overlook. Some Christians would surely like to have my head for this. Before even posting the final version of this essay I’ve already received more than one e-mail asking why on earth I would want to argue against an argument for the existence of a god. Surely I must be nothing but a needless instigator, trying to divide the Body and help the atheist, they say. But there are several reasons why I find this essay necessary. ...

Return to Original Article

[theatheistguy]

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Although it may be deemed as 'common knowledge' I don't think it could really be classified as a universal truth. For example, see the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed just change form.
2) Again, this is not known, nor is it asserted by science. The current form began with the big bang 13.73 billion years ago, however, the universe is thought to be eternal (see above).
3) Perhaps the universe had a cause (say if science were to be completely wrong) but that does not mean a deity. It is a ridiculous leap of logic to say that because it is possible that something caused the universe, that therefore that something is a someone.

And just a single point of criticism, can we not refer to atheists as 'the atheist', sounds rather reminiscent Nazi references to 'the Jew'. I know you didn't mean it like that, just thought I'd mention.

[T. Scott Morgan]

I tend to refer to Christians as "the Christian" as well, so yea I don't mean anything by it. But I'll keep that in mind .

While I don't like the Cosmological Argument, I do think apologists make a sound point in their defense of premise 2. I don't know that you can realistically defend the possibility of an actually infinite regression of events. Of course, if it is not necessarily true that everything must have a cause then there is no need to speak of an infinite regression of causes. But it still seems very implausible to me.

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the Transcendental Argument. I'll be posting on that in the near future. Only one argument for the Christian God is necessary, I think, and I don't think that one can be consistently argued against.

[theatheistguy]

I'll be sure to pitch in when you post about the Transcendental Argument.

I can see we both agree that the Cosmological Argument fails in at least 2 of its premises, so regardless of the third (premise 2), the position falls flat.

In defence of my rebuttal of premise 2, though I agree there is no way of proving what came 'before' the big bang as we cant see that far back, we are able to hypothesise about how things may have been based on the knowledge we currently have. So no, not fact, or scientific theory, more of an educated guess.

[grahame]

I'm not sure that anyone can ever "prove" anything to anyone who does not want to believe. That is why I don't hold very strongly, or have much confident in apologetics. They may have a value to the Christian and have the effect of strengthening his/her faith. But to use apologetics with an Atheist with the intent of trying to prove the existence of God to my mind is just a waste of breath.
Although the Scriptures indeed say

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork

(Psalm 19:1) and

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful

(Rom 1:18-21) Nevertheless without God working the miracle of the new birth within the hearts of men and women these arguments are completely useless and will only serve to condemn that person on the day of judgement if they continue in their unrighteousness and unbelief.
But there is a further proof that many Christians overlook when witnessing to the unbeliever. It is the conscience. That inner voice which God has set withing the heart of every individual who comes into the world.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness , and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another ) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

(Rom 2:14-16) The Christian so often overlooks this his greatest ally when witnessing to unbelievers. The Holy Spirit, the hound of heaven uses this "conscience" this light of God which searches the heart to bring a person finally to a knowledge of God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore to my mind I endeavour to trust only in the preaching of the word of God. And the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is the message and the only message that will save men and women from their sins. It is no use trying to prove the existence of God to the unsaved heart that is at enmity with God. And who will not conform to the will of God and indeed cannot because their hearts love their sins too much. This is the apostle's take on the subject

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

(1 Cor 2:21)

[T. Scott Morgan]

I'm not sure that anyone can ever "prove" anything to anyone who does not want to believe. That is why I don't hold very strongly, or have much confident in apologetics.

Well there is a big difference between proof and persuasion, don't you think? Just because one is not able to persuade another of something does not mean he cannot prove it. A man can face proof and still deny it out of bias or a love for his traditional ideas. In fact is that not what we are told in Romans 1:18-21 that all men do prior to the new birth?

Again, this is why I disagree with the usefulness of evidential or classical apologetics. I would agree with you insofar as those methods are concerned. But presuppositionalism is quite different, and I personally would even liken it more to a discipline that is a part of the larger discipline of evangelism. A man cannot convince another man to accept Christ -- only the regenerating power of God can cause a man to do that -- but that does not negate the necessity of sharing the gospel to the lost. Well, in presuppositional apologetics really our goal is the same. We attempt to show the truth of what we are told in Romans 1 by demonstrating that the unbeliever must rely on Christianity in his attempt to disprove Christianity (hence, he knows the truth of God in his heart of hearts but suppresses it by his unrighteousness).

Whether the unbeliever will be convinced of the argument is a matter that is wholly up to God. But the case is no different when merely sharing the gospel to someone.

But there is a further proof that many Christians overlook when witnessing to the unbeliever. It is the conscience. That inner voice which God has set withing the heart of every individual who comes into the world.

I agree, and again, this is why I would agree with your criticism insofar as evidentialism is concerned, but also why I believe presuppositional apologetics is a needed discipline. In the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeliever recognize his knowledge of this inner voice that he has suppressed.

[grahame]

I agree, and again, this is why I would agree with your criticism insofar as evidentialism is concerned, but also why I believe presuppositional apologetics is a needed discipline. In the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeliever recognize his knowledge of this inner voice that he has suppressed.

Yes I would agree with that. Although after many years of trying this I have found that what you can accomplish with the unbeliever is extremely limited.
I have seen more and more the value of applying Scripture to the unregenerate mind has been far more profitable in awakening the conscience to spiritual things. I have discovered the true value of conviction of sin.
So often the unbeliever just leads you round in circles. But Scripture's own testimony is that it is "... is quick , and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
But as I said, apologetics does have limited value.

[Rev.Bones]

I agree, and again, this is why I would agree with your criticism insofar as evidentialism is concerned, but also why I believe presuppositional apologetics is a needed discipline. In the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeliever recognize his knowledge of this inner voice that he has suppressed.

Scott,
I would have to agree whole-heartedly with Grahame's origial post here. It is as if he stole the words right out of my mouth. Though it is apparent you feel that apologetics [and presuppositional apologetics specifically] has its place, I must ask you about this last statement that you made. You said in the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeleiver recognize his knowledge of this inner voice....Though you may indeed be right about that, this may indeed be the goal, but is this the Christian mandate? Are we "to help" the unbeleiver in this manner? Is it even up to the Christian "to help"? Isn't that the working of the Holy Spirit coupled with the sovereign and sufficent Word of God? I see the Scripture teaches we are to preach the Word and to proclaim the truth - are you equating the use of apologetics in a debate with the unbeleiver with that of simply preaching the truth of the Word of God in love?

I'm not trying to be smart or funny here. Maybe I'm missing something and you can help me out. As a preacher of the Gospel, I find that the Word of God contains all that a soul needs [from salvation to sanctification] to thoroghally furnish and make complete one for every good work [2Tim 3:14-17]. Maybe I am just not well studied in these other feilds to the point I can make a "good" or "logical" arguement from science or other studies. But do I need to be? Is not the truth of the Scriptures along with the working of the Holy Spirit enough? Do we trust in our might to "help" open the ears and the eyes of the unbeliever or do we fully rely on the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation?

Thanks for your time my good man.

Go well.

[T. Scott Morgan]

I agree, and again, this is why I would agree with your criticism insofar as evidentialism is concerned, but also why I believe presuppositional apologetics is a needed discipline. In the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeliever recognize his knowledge of this inner voice that he has suppressed.

Scott,
I would have to agree whole-heartedly with Grahame's origial post here. It is as if he stole the words right out of my mouth. Though it is apparent you feel that apologetics [and presuppositional apologetics specifically] has its place, I must ask you about this last statement that you made. You said in the apologetic task our goal is to help the unbeleiver recognize his knowledge of this inner voice....Though you may indeed be right about that, this may indeed be the goal, but is this the Christian mandate? Are we "to help" the unbeleiver in this manner? Is it even up to the Christian "to help"? Isn't that the working of the Holy Spirit coupled with the sovereign and sufficent Word of God? I see the Scripture teaches we are to preach the Word and to proclaim the truth - are you equating the use of apologetics in a debate with the unbeleiver with that of simply preaching the truth of the Word of God in love?

I'm not trying to be smart or funny here. Maybe I'm missing something and you can help me out. As a preacher of the Gospel, I find that the Word of God contains all that a soul needs [from salvation to sanctification] to thoroghally furnish and make complete one for every good work [2Tim 3:14-17]. Maybe I am just not well studied in these other feilds to the point I can make a "good" or "logical" arguement from science or other studies. But do I need to be? Is not the truth of the Scriptures along with the working of the Holy Spirit enough? Do we trust in our might to "help" open the ears and the eyes of the unbeliever or do we fully rely on the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation?

Thanks for your time my good man.

Go well.

Well again several things. One, I don't believe that apologetic arguments are themselves equivalent to the presentation of the gospel. But in the overall task of witnessing to an unbeliever, answering questions and criticisms can and often are a necessary aspect of discussion. We are called in Scripture to be prepared to do this and we also have examples of the biblical writers and other individuals in Scripture engaging pagans in such witness (e.g. Acts 17).

So by the phrase "to help," which may have been a bad choice of words, I don't mean to say that our own efforts are capable of doing anything to change the sinner's heart. But just as the sovereign election of God does not disqualify the command for us to preach the gospel to the lost and to pray for the lost, neither does the deadness of man's heart disqualify the command for us to defend or give an answer for the hope within us, to anyone who asks. Our defense is not itself going to change anything in that unbeliever. But we are still commanded to give it, and God may work through it.

Now, another thing; we don't start in presuppositionalism from the basis of science or evidences. This is one of the differences in presuppositionalism from other methods and why I disagree with other methods. We might make use of evidences in the context of the truth of Scripture, but only because that Scripture is first assumed and declared. So I would certainly agree with you in saying that the Word of God contains all that a soul needs. I don't see any reason to believe that that is not a perfectly fine way of describing presuppositionalism, because presuppositional arguments are based on Scripture.

[grahame]

Obviously we need apologetic arguments during our application of scripture. For Scripture was not written in a vacuum. We cannot divorce ourselves from the natural world as we are part of it. So we can use these arguments to strengthen our position and to establish that faith in and of itself is reasonable and is founded in fact and not as so many unbelieving "scientists" think something that is outside of scientific thought and therefore because of this cannot be counted in a scientific argument. Many evolutionists tend to think in this way. That faith is entirely divorced from the natural world and is therefore irrelevent to any scientific argument. opologetics can in this situation redress the balance and show that the Christian faith is very much based on fact.

[T. Scott Morgan]

I ran across this quote by Bahnsen. It may or may not be relevant here, but I thought I'd share:

"[As a Christian apologist] your work is not to change people's hearts, in a sense, your work is simply to close people's mouths. You can take their antagonism and their hostility and what they say against Christianity and show that even that couldn't make sense unless Christianity were true in the first place." -Greg Bahnsen

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -1 Corinthians 1:20

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." -2 Corinthians 10:5

[NomosCharis]

First of all, I would like to say that I thought that this critique of the Cosmological Argument was very well thought out and presented. It certainly should make the average supporter of the CA think a bit.

In my opinion, the CA is not so much an argument for God's existence as it is an argument for God's existence "as the creator of all things." It is actually more of an argument against Pantheism than an argument against Atheism, as I see it. Correctly used, it is effective. As far as God's mere existence (regardless of whether he has created anything or not) the Ontological Argument is sufficient proof (and I don't mean Anselm, or Plantinga--I belive that Jonathan Edwards had a superior version than most others), and I am convinced that the CA only serves to prove God's existence insofar as it forces a person (and it does) to indirectly think about the OA. I believe your article merely supports my conviction.

However, on simply Biblical grounds I would like to point out that it cannot possibly be true that the Cosmological Argument (correctly used) is unsound, because if it were men would have an excuse for not accepting its conclusion, and according to Romans 1:20 they do not. Remember, that verse clearly states that it is "BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE" that men understand God. So I must conclude that if Scripture is true the Cosmological Argument is sound, and if the Cosmological Argument is not sound, Scripture is not sound. It is no less than the inerrancy of the Bible that is at stake in this.

Your central criticism is that there is no a-priori or a-posteriori reasons for accepting the law of cause-and-effect without somehow assuming the existence of God.

My reply is that, while I agree with you that (in a way suitable for our purposes) there are no STRICTLY a-posteriori reasons, I can easily supply you with 2 a-priori reasons (that do not directly appeal to God) for why we cannot logically deny this law.

But before I do that, I want to eliminate a possible objection that I anticipate might come from you as a Presuppositionalist. I will begin by asking you a question. You used a "3-sided-square" as an example of something that we can know is impossible a-priori. Would you then agree with me that it is acceptable to say that we can a-priori dismiss the possibility of 3-sided-squares WITHOUT appealing to the existence of God?

I think you should say yes, since the only reason you cited this example in the first place was to contrast it with the law of cause-and-effect. You were basically saying, "If we are going to validate causality a-priori without already assuming the existence of God, we have to find support for it SIMILAR to the support for validating that "3-sided-squares are impossible." There was no other reason for you to even mention this example.

But I suspect that (as a Presuppositionalist) you would want to say no. You would want to say that people have to assume logic before they can dismiss 3-sided-squares, and they need to assume God before they can assume logic. But if that is your appeal, then what were you contrasting "3-sided-squares" with the first premise of the Kalam for in the first place? What difference is there between the two?

The fact is, there is no point in making any difference between these two things. "3-sided-square" is not a concept about logic, it is a concept about squares. Likewise, the law of cause and effect is not a concept about logic, it is a concept about causes and effects. It is meant to show that "uncaused effects" are illogical, not that logic is logical. There is no point in demanding that it go further and support the validity of logic itself, since that is not its intention. After all, no one demands that the professor support the validity of logic itself when he demonstrates that 3-sided-squares do not exist. In order to validate the law of cause and effect, all we have to do is show that we cannot accept uncaused-effects "IF WE WILL BE LOGICAL." We do not have to do anything more than that.

Now, since almost all people, Christian or not, claim that they want to be logical, that is a powerful point. But, if someone wishes to be obstinate and argue whether logic itself is valid, it is even possible to demonstrate this without God. All we have to do is simply point out that if one wishes to question whether logic is valid he must use logic in order to do that, since he has no other choice. Logic cannot be questioned without being assumed; every thought is governed by it, even the thought that it might not be valid. Therefore, it cannot be thought to be invalid regardless of whether one will acknowledge its foundation in the nature of God.

Therefore, I propose that IF I can find an a-priori proof that establishes the law of cause-and-effect that is logical and comparable to a-priori proofs against "3-sided-squares" and such--then that should be enough to end your criticism of the CA.

In fact I can provide you with two:

1) An effect without a cause is a concept that analytically falsifies itself (one that cannot even be thought to be true). This is because of the definitions involved. The word "effect" is defined as "whatever is caused to occur;" just like the word "cause" is defined as "whatever produces an effect." There is no other way to define these terms. Go ahead and use any synonyms you like. Substitute "event" or "happening" for the word "effect" and you will eventually find that you get the same thing. An "effect" by definition is whatever is caused to occur by something else. Therefore, an "uncaused-effect" is a meaningless, self-falsifying phrase. You might as well claim to be able to think of "married-bachelors" or "3-sided-squares," because "uncaused-effects" are just as internally incoherent.

2) Nothing does not exist. It is defined as that which does not exist. It is non-being, and "non-being... being" is nonsense. "Non-being" cannot even be thought "to-be" in any possible circumstance. It logically cannot be. But if "non-being" cannot "be" ...then it cannot "be"-a-cause. That which is not, is not a cause. And, as pointed out above, that which is not a cause does not (by definition) produce any effects, since that's what a cause is. If it produced an effect, it would be a cause, so obviously that which cannot be a cause does not produce any effects in any possible world. Think about it: Could a "married-bachelor" ever produce an effect in any possible world? Of course it couldn't. Why not? Because that which cannot "be" cannot be a cause. Could a thing be the efficient cause of itself beginning to exist in any possible world? No. Why not? Because that which cannot "be" (such as a thing before it exists) cannot be it's own cause. "Nothing" cannot be. Therefore, "nothing" cannot be a cause. To say otherwise is to violate the law of non-contradiction.

If you try to deny this by continuing to insist that you are able to think of possible worlds were "uncaused-effects" exist, I will simply go back to the above two points and insist that, logically, you cannot think of what you say you can. Anyone can claim to be able to think of logically impossible worlds, but it's never anything more than a claim. You know that.

So that's it. The Cosmological Argument stands unharmed. Properly used, it fulfills its purpose--proving that all things that are not God are ultimately created by God out of nothing.

[T. Scott Morgan]

First of all, I would like to say that I thought that this critique of the Cosmological Argument was very well thought out and presented. It certainly should make the average supporter of the CA think a bit.

In my opinion, the CA is not so much an argument for God's existence as it is an argument for God's existence "as the creator of all things." It is actually more of an argument against Pantheism than an argument against Atheism, as I see it. Correctly used, it is effective. As far as God's mere existence (regardless of whether he has created anything or not) the Ontological Argument is sufficient proof (and I don't mean Anselm, or Plantinga--I belive that Jonathan Edwards had a superior version than most others), and I am convinced that the CA only serves to prove God's existence insofar as it forces a person (and it does) to indirectly think about the OA. I believe your article merely supports my conviction.

However, on simply Biblical grounds I would like to point out that it cannot possibly be true that the Cosmological Argument (correctly used) is unsound, because if it were men would have an excuse for not accepting its conclusion, and according to Romans 1:20 they do not. Remember, that verse clearly states that it is "BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE" that men understand God. So I must conclude that if Scripture is true the Cosmological Argument is sound, and if the Cosmological Argument is not sound, Scripture is not sound. It is no less than the inerrancy of the Bible that is at stake in this.

Your central criticism is that there is no a-priori or a-posteriori reasons for accepting the law of cause-and-effect without somehow assuming the existence of God.

My reply is that, while I agree with you that (in a way suitable for our purposes) there are no STRICTLY a-posteriori reasons, I can easily supply you with 2 a-priori reasons (that do not directly appeal to God) for why we cannot logically deny this law.

But before I do that, I want to eliminate a possible objection that I anticipate might come from you as a Presuppositionalist. I will begin by asking you a question. You used a "3-sided-square" as an example of something that we can know is impossible a-priori. Would you then agree with me that it is acceptable to say that we can a-priori dismiss the possibility of 3-sided-squares WITHOUT appealing to the existence of God?

I think you should say yes, since the only reason you cited this example in the first place was to contrast it with the law of cause-and-effect. You were basically saying, "If we are going to validate causality a-priori without already assuming the existence of God, we have to find support for it SIMILAR to the support for validating that "3-sided-squares are impossible." There was no other reason for you to even mention this example.

But I suspect that (as a Presuppositionalist) you would want to say no. You would want to say that people have to assume logic before they can dismiss 3-sided-squares, and they need to assume God before they can assume logic. But if that is your appeal, then what were you contrasting "3-sided-squares" with the first premise of the Kalam for in the first place? What difference is there between the two?

The fact is, there is no point in making any difference between these two things. "3-sided-square" is not a concept about logic, it is a concept about squares. Likewise, the law of cause and effect is not a concept about logic, it is a concept about causes and effects. It is meant to show that "uncaused effects" are illogical, not that logic is logical. There is no point in demanding that it go further and support the validity of logic itself, since that is not its intention. After all, no one demands that the professor support the validity of logic itself when he demonstrates that 3-sided-squares do not exist. In order to validate the law of cause and effect, all we have to do is show that we cannot accept uncaused-effects "IF WE WILL BE LOGICAL." We do not have to do anything more than that.

Now, since almost all people, Christian or not, claim that they want to be logical, that is a powerful point. But, if someone wishes to be obstinate and argue whether logic itself is valid, it is even possible to demonstrate this without God. All we have to do is simply point out that if one wishes to question whether logic is valid he must use logic in order to do that, since he has no other choice. Logic cannot be questioned without being assumed; every thought is governed by it, even the thought that it might not be valid. Therefore, it cannot be thought to be invalid regardless of whether one will acknowledge its foundation in the nature of God.

Therefore, I propose that IF I can find an a-priori proof that establishes the law of cause-and-effect that is logical and comparable to a-priori proofs against "3-sided-squares" and such--then that should be enough to end your criticism of the CA.

In fact I can provide you with two:

1) An effect without a cause is a concept that analytically falsifies itself (one that cannot even be thought to be true). This is because of the definitions involved. The word "effect" is defined as "whatever is caused to occur;" just like the word "cause" is defined as "whatever produces an effect." There is no other way to define these terms. Go ahead and use any synonyms you like. Substitute "event" or "happening" for the word "effect" and you will eventually find that you get the same thing. An "effect" by definition is whatever is caused to occur by something else. Therefore, an "uncaused-effect" is a meaningless, self-falsifying phrase. You might as well claim to be able to think of "married-bachelors" or "3-sided-squares," because "uncaused-effects" are just as internally incoherent.

2) Nothing does not exist. It is defined as that which does not exist. It is non-being, and "non-being... being" is nonsense. "Non-being" cannot even be thought "to-be" in any possible circumstance. It logically cannot be. But if "non-being" cannot "be" ...then it cannot "be"-a-cause. That which is not, is not a cause. And, as pointed out above, that which is not a cause does not (by definition) produce any effects, since that's what a cause is. If it produced an effect, it would be a cause, so obviously that which cannot be a cause does not produce any effects in any possible world. Think about it: Could a "married-bachelor" ever produce an effect in any possible world? Of course it couldn't. Why not? Because that which cannot "be" cannot be a cause. Could a thing be the efficient cause of itself beginning to exist in any possible world? No. Why not? Because that which cannot "be" (such as a thing before it exists) cannot be it's own cause. "Nothing" cannot be. Therefore, "nothing" cannot be a cause. To say otherwise is to violate the law of non-contradiction.

If you try to deny this by continuing to insist that you are able to think of possible worlds were "uncaused-effects" exist, I will simply go back to the above two points and insist that, logically, you cannot think of what you say you can. Anyone can claim to be able to think of logically impossible worlds, but it's never anything more than a claim. You know that.

So that's it. The Cosmological Argument stands unharmed. Properly used, it fulfills its purpose--proving that all things that are not God are ultimately created by God out of nothing.

Hey Nomos, thanks for the reply. I've been meaning to respond back to you on the other thread but have been very busy. I've written out my reply but only have internet access via my phone until Thursday. Ill get back to you then or this weekend.

[T. Scott Morgan]

Nomos, I've replied to your comments here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=508&p=3802#p3802