Cosmological Argument

Alrighty, today is the Cosmological argument. Wow. To make sense of this monster, I'm going to type straight out my notes on Nash's lecture, and then try and process it. Let me know what you think. 

Nash's Stuff: 

Cosmological Argument- Two forms. 

(Good Form and Bad Form)

It's an attempt to argue God's existence because of the existence of the earth. (It's different than Intelligent Design though). Basically it says- God is the first cause. 

It relies on the term "First".  

There are two ways to interpret the word "first".

     a. Temporal- First in time. (Bad version). 

     b. Importance- First in value. 

3 Major failings of the "Bad" argument.  

Pause for a second: The bad argument is basically when a child asks his or her parents where the earth came from, and they respond with "God made it". The child then responds, "Who made God?", and the parents reply, "He just is and always has been. No one created him".  Sound familiar? Ya. That's because we tend to use it a lot. Nash doesn't think it's a very good idea to use it. Though, interestingly enough, he doesn't really give a replacement argument. He just says not to use this one. 

So, What's wrong with the bad argument? 

     a. Even if a series of causes exists, and even if the first cause was there- that doesn't prove that it's still around. Some believe that the universe is like a clock- that it could have been wound up and left to tick on its own. 

     b. It doesn't account for the number of causes. It concludes that there's only 1, but without logic to back it up. Maybe there were more than one "First causes". 

     c. A cause need be no greater than is necessary to produce an effect. So basically- it doesn't prove the characteristics of God, just that maybe something possibly "started" the universe in a way. 

Personal Research: 

Nash's thing just wasn't sufficient in helping me understand this. I'm getting my stuff from Wikepedia (I know, not the greatest source ever, but it's putting thing's simply, and this is purely to help me understand, not for reliability of information. So, sorry, but it's what I'm using). 

Here's how they put it: 

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Makes sense so far. 

Objections (Similar to Nash's)

1. The argument states that there is a First Cause. Meaning- it's exempt from the rule of needing a cause. But why? Why is it exempt? 

My own personal answer is this- (Its not so great, but bear with me...)

Earlier, we talked about presuppositions, and I believe that those come in handy here. A sane and reasonable person knows that there are causes and effects. Everything has some sort of cause. I believe that this is a presupposition that we have. To add on to that- I also believe we have a presupposition that has to do with a beginning. Thing's need a beginning. The third has to do with an infinite loop. We're resistant to let the cause-effect thing go on forever. Eventually we want to know where the cause came from. If you smash those three together- you can sort of paint a picture resembling the cosmological argument. We believe that things need causes, and that thing's need beginnings(somewhere to start). We are reluctant to let it infinitely go on forever. We can tentatively infer then, that there has to be a beginning to cause and effect itself (First Cause). These are just my observations. 

On the flip side, you could question that train of thought, and keep asking "why". I suppose another flaw would be those presuppositions. To acknowledge presuppositions calls into question their origin. I believe it to be God, but for a non-believer it gets a bit more complex. For them, the cause could possibly be evolution, or maybe presuppositions just aren't an option. If you find a flaw, feel free to let me know. 

2. Even if there is a first cause, that doesn't make it God. 

This one I have no counterargument for. The cosmological argument just isn't sufficient on that point. However, I will say that perhaps other arguments could take its place in helping to prove that the first cause is indeed God. (Remember the bucket thing??) 

This next thing completely blew my mind... I'm not even going to attempt to paraphrase. I'll copy, and then take the time to site it. 

Existence of causal loops

A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where travel backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.

The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."^[20]

Not exactly valid, but interesting to think about. 

In esse and in fieri

This is basically the difference between believing that the First cause stuck around, or ceased to exist. For Christians, obviously we believe that He's still around and involved. The cosmological argument doesn't do anything to prove this, it's just a variation of the argument. 

Conclusions 

Overall, I get the argument itself, but for a while, I didn't understand where Nash was going with it. After doing some research, I think I've come up with an answer (even if its not that great). When dealing with "Where did God come from?", a possible solution is this: If we accept (and have arguments for) the characteristics and existence of God, then it gives him the ability to be the exception to the cause and effect rule. If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then he can be the first cause. 

 Therefore- I agree when Nash says that the first response is a "bad" argument. I think the underlying issue is- it has nothing to back it up. It's the right response, but not defended well. If you were to approach it from the side- and say, "Ok, the cosmological approach doesn't work, but maybe arguments for God's omniscience will help..."  we start to see that the response wasn't necessarily "wrong", just in need of further thought. 

Hopefully soon I'll be able to find some good arguments for God's omniscience to share with you guys. 

Leave comments- they're really appreciated! :)  

Thanks for reading. 

Stay tuned for "Possible Worlds". Sounds interesting. Should be good.