(NON) EXISTENCE OF GOD - Part 2
(…continued from previous post. If it’s necessary check it from here)
After discussing briefly the teleological argument, from there we can move to the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. It is mainly based on the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas (the thirteenth century Dominican and the greatest philosopher of religion of all) and there are two main forms; the temporal, “kalam cosmological argument” (the first cause argument), and the modal “argument from contingency”. This argument works simply like this:1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe exists. Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore:
5. God exists.
It basically claims, “Ok, maybe God didn’t create the universe like now, in each and every detail but there must be a first cause (first mover). What was there in the beginning (or before Big Bang)?”. In fact this is such a strong argument because it causes to human logic comes to a deadlock. In the case of the kalam cosmological argument, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Everything that has a beginning in time has a cause of its existence. As the universe has a beginning in time, then, the argument concludes, the universe has a cause of its existence, and that cause is God. In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. As the universe is contingent, then, the universe has a cause of its existence, and that cause is God.
But this argument has also its weak points. First of all, it claims that causality is not only exist in universe but it’s a concept that should exist even before the universe. Otherwise you can’t find a reasonable necessity for the first mover. Therefore this argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”.
If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain.
If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise, “Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.” If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument can be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. If God is claimed to exist uncaused, then, then the simple cosmological argument fails.
Now we can discuss the ontological argument in the next post…
0 Noises:
Post a Comment
<< Home