God's Existence, Part 3 - First Cause

Now that I am more confident over having better stated my position  (though not comprehensive) regarding physical evidence for God's existence, it is time to move to philosophical arguments. These are ones that answer more serious questions. For instance, how can we understand the world around us? How can we explain it? What do we know about it? How do we know what we do?

Before I begin, I need to re-iterate that my posts on these topics are never intended to be comprehensive. There are plenty of resources providing a  thorough look at these arguments. I do not want you to be convinced that issues of logic and philosophy are this simple. I merely want to bring them to your attention in a way that simplifies them, stirring interest in the topic. It is my hope you will be renewed in your mind as a result, or at least consider researching further details as you feel lead.


With that caveat in place, the first of the philosophical arguments for God I want to consider is one of the biggest, and most popular. It is the cosmological argument. This argument addresses cause and effect in the universe, and essentially says everything that is "caused" - the universe included - requires a "first cause". This "first cause" must not be caused - otherwise, there is no starting point for a chain of cause/effect. If there is no "first cause" at the end of the chain as you go back, you could go back forever. That "first cause" is what we call God.

To imagine this, picture yourself as a 4 year old. Someone tells you that your parents created you. "Who created them?" you ask in response. They reply "Your  grandparents", but answer after answer you innocently repeat the question. Before long, your parents are frustrated! How far back can you go? Forever? If you had just said "God created everything", it would have probably ended the argument.

The first known forms of this argument came from the classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Both verbalized the need for a 'first cause' based on their view of the universe. For Plato, the motion of the universe begged for a "first mover" - the implication being the universe has a fixed beginning and ending. Aristotle, however, disagreed - to him, the universe had always existed, but that begged the need for a.

Many centuries later, Islamic philosopher Avicenna would refine these arguments. He considered the "form" and "matter" of objects as being important to the argument. His idea was that the essence of the universe (whether or not it was moved) is not enough to infer "first cause". Rather, since form and matter give existence to something, there must exist a "first cause" that imparts these qualities to all objects, and as such cannot exist apart from the objects.

Eventually, however, it would be Thomas Aquinas who would revise these arguments in the 13th century, devising one of the most popular versions of the argument. He argued that the first cause itself arises out of the need that all cause/effect chains must have an "uncaused" origin. It is minor variations of this argument that are debated about today, particularly the Kalam cosmological argument (which clarifies that anything with a beginning must be caused). William Lane Craig is perhaps the most popular proponent of this argument, and has put much effort into developing it to adapt to discoveries of modern physics and science.

The basis of debates over this argument center around whether or not "something" (the universe) can come from "nothing" (no God). If so, then a "first cause" is not needed. Believers in God, of course, disagree. But physicists and skeptics say otherwise. Quantum fluctuations have been observed which appear to have no beginning - this would be "something coming from nothing". Other than this being very recent in history, though, saying it does not appear to have a beginning is not the same as saying it has no beginning. More than that, what is overlooked is how physicists defines "nothing". To them, this "nothing" is some sort of quantum vacuum of energy. But that makes it "something", rather than a complete "absence of being".

As you can see, it's easily one of the most complicated and debated philosophical arguments still today. Challenges are frequently presented to various details of the argument. These challenges prompt clarification of certain points, but as this is done, more questions arise. For this reason, it should be noted that the argument has limits to what it can prove. It is not by any means a "settled" argument.

Now that you've gotten a sense of the argument's nature, let's look at some of the more common objections [1]:

1. If everything requires a "first cause", then so does God!
2. Even if I accept there is such a "first cause", it can not be identified as any particular god or gods. 
3. The Big Bang is just as likely a "first cause".
4. If the universe is infinite, then infinite regress is of no concern - there can be an infinite # of causes and effects.
5. If the existence of everything in the universe can be explained, the existence of the the universe itself is explained. No first cause is needed.
6. The Big Bang created the universe, including time and space - therefore cause/effect (functions of time and space) are irrelevant to explaining the universe's beginning.

So, what are we to think of these? They are reasonable arguments, but the semantics are what can be weak. Allow me to offer some counter-claims. As you read through them, you should see how important it can be to just ask questions.

1. The "first cause" must be infinite and uncreated to prevent an infinite loop - having no beginning. God is this cause and has always been believed to have these properties. To say that he has no beginning is to say that he operates outside of time-space limitations. That means he does not need to be "caused".
2. This is just pleading, not arguing. Even if the argument does not identify the nature of the "first cause", God's existence is as plausible as any other "first cause". What is needed is to define possible "first causes" and test those definitions for soundness. (much like testing different religions for consistency/truth)  This is outside the traditional scope of the argument.
3. From a philosophical standpoint, the Big Bang is not a "first cause" but an initial state of the universe. Something still caused it - physicists typically pointing to the previously discussed quantum vacuum. 
4. Infinity is a maximum boundary for the finite. Causes and effects are finite - if they were infinite in number, infinity would no longer serve as a boundary. This would be devastating to mathematics, which relies on infinity as a boundary for finite sets!
5. Can everything in the universe truly be explained? If so, by what terms? If we explain things in the universe using things that are in it, don't those things need to be uncaused? If we explain the universe by things that are not in it, then you have not explained the existence of everything!
6. Much like #2, God can be plugged into this equation. But considering #3, can the Big Bang really be the "first cause"? If so, wouldn't the same objections apply?

There are counter-arguments to each of these, but as I said before they focus on how to define the words used. For instance, how do we define an "event"? What is required of an event to be "caused"? But I hope I have shown the cosmological argument as a strong and plausible proof for the existence of a supreme being. At best, critics may be able to posit alternate scenarios or "first causes" as equally likely, but as the "first cause" is more clearly defined, it could be little else than God. This is what I hope to do as we look at other arguments together - clarify what else we can infer about this "first cause" that screams for a specific "cause" - a personal agent, God.



For further reading, look for some of William Lane Craig's books on the topic.or consider the following sources, which were used for this discussion:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
• Accessed 12/29/2011

• Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
• Accessed 12/29/2011