Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

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.

Like most of the purported proofs of the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms. Two forms of the argument will be discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal “argument from contingency”.

The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument. In order to explain what this objection is, and how the two arguments evade it, a simple, generic statement of the cosmological argument will be necessary. This statement is as follows:

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(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.

This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the form of the question “Does God have a cause of his existence?”

If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn’t get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us.

If, on the other hand, God were thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God were thought to be an uncaused being, then this too would raise difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. The existence of an uncaused God would thus render the simple cosmological argument unsound, and so useless as a proof of the existence of God.

Each of the two forms of cosmological argument discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmological argument presented above. Each of the two cosmological arguments discussed here draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason why the existence of the universe stands in a need of an explanation while the existence of God does not. Each therefore evades the objection outlined above.

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, the kalam cosmological argument claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.

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. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not contingent but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.

Each of these two forms of the cosmological argument, then, evades the objection introduced above in a distinct way. The two arguments are therefore distinct, and so warrant individual assessments.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The temporal, kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig.

Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God. The existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that it was created by God.

What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. With the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that the existence of the universe is thought to stand in need of explanation.

The argument has the following structure:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

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.

The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite, that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.

The crucial premise of the kalam cosmological argument, then, is the second: “The universe has a beginning of its existence”. How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Might not the universe stretch back in time into infinity, always having existed? The proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must show that this cannot be the case if his argument is to be successful.

Advocates of the kalam cosmological argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past. The existence of an infinite past, they say, entails all manner of logical absurdities.

If there exists an infinite past, then if we were to assign a number to each past moment then every real number (i.e. every postive integer) would be assigned to some moment. There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers such that moment number one becomes moment number two, and moment number two becomes moment number three, and so on, we could free up moment number one to be assigned to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present. That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinites shows that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments.

The Argument from Contingency

The modal cosmological argument or “argument from contingency” is the argument from the contingency of the world or universe to the existence of God. The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically. The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas and of Leibniz are all statements of the modal form of the argument.

What distinguishes the modal cosmological argument from the kalam cosmological argument is that it is consistent with the idea that the universe has an infinite past. The kalam cosmological argument rests on the controversial claim that the universe has a beginning in time. The argument from contingency, in contrast, is consistent with the universe having existed from eternity.

The argument from contingency draws on the distinction between things that exist necessarily and things that exist contingently.

Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.

Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.

The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. It is not only the case, the argument suggests, that each of the things around is us contingent; it is also the case that the whole, all of those things taken together, is contingent. It might have been the case that nothing existed at all. The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs.

It is this that the argument from contingency takes to be significant. It is because it is thought that the universe exists contingently that its existence is thought to require explanation. If the universe might not have existed, then why does it exist? Proponents of the cosmological argument suggest that questions like this always have answers. The existence of things that are necessary does not require explanation; their non-existence is impossible. The existence of anything contingent, however, does require explanation. They might not have existed, and so there must be some reason that they do so.

Critics of the argument from contingency have sometimes questioned whether the universe is contingent, but it remains at least plausible to think that it is so.

The only adequate explanation of the existence of the contingent universe, the argument from contingency suggests, is that there exists a necessary being on which its existence it rests. For the existence of the contingent universe must rest on something, and if it rested on some contingent being then that contingent being too would require some explanation of its existence. The ultimate explanation of the existence of all things, therefore, must be the existence of some necessary being. This necessary being is readily identified by proponents of the cosmological argument as God.

The argument from contingency, then, can be summarised as follows:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

(2) The universe exists contingently.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.

(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

The Teleological Argument

“The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man.” [Spoken by Cleanthes in David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part II.]

Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. Their name is derived from the Greek word, “telos”, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. The classical statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley. Paley likened the universe to a watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to further some purpose. The argument as he constructed it is thus an argument from analogy.

Modern teleological arguments look somewhat different to that constructed by Paley. Modern teleological arguments focus on the “fine-tuning” in the universe. Whether they are successful is therefore a question distinct from the question as to whether Paley’s argument is successful. The two types of teleological argument therefore require investigation separately.

Although teleological arguments are often referred to as “arguments from design”, those who oppose such arguments sometimes take offence at this. Noted sceptic Anthony Flew, in particular, has criticised this name.

Flew grants that if the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it. This appears to be a simple linguistic truth, on a par with the truth that if something is being carried then there must be something else that is carrying it.

What Flew disputes, and what he takes to be the centre of the discussion concerning the teleological argument, is whether the universe does indeed contain design. Paley’s watch analogy, and the evidence of fine-tuning, are not intended to demonstrate that the design in the universe is the work of an intelligent agent, but rather are intended to demonstrate that the order in the universe is indeed design. Flew therefore suggests that we speak not of “arguments from design” but of “arguments to design”.

The Argument from Analogy

The classical statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley in his Natural Theology. Paley likened the universe to a watch. Like a watch, he said, the universe consists of many complex parts functioning in harmony to some useful end. In a watch the various parts are ordered such that they measure time; in the universe, such that they support life. The two are, in this respect, similar.

In the case of a watch we take these properties to constitute evidence of design. If we were to stumble across a watch in a natural environment, lying on a heath, for example, then we would instantly know that it was designed because of its order and complexity. If order and complexity constitute evidence of design in the case of a watch, though, then they must also constitute evidence of design in the case of the universe. The case of the watch therefore illustrates the fact that the order and complexity of the universe is evidence that the universe was designed.

The inference from the order and complexity of a watch to its being designed is not dependent on knowledge of how watches are made. If we were to stumble across a watch in a natural environment, then we would instantly know that it was designed even without any knowledge of how watches are made or where watches come from. It is therefore no objection to Paley’s argument that we know how watches are made but do not know how universes are made. Order and complexity are together sufficient to support the inference to a designer even without any knowledge at all of the origins of universes.

Not only can we infer from the analogy between the order and complexity of a watch and the order and complexity of the universe that the universe has a designer, we can also infer something about what this designer is like. For the universe is not only ordered and complex in the same way as a watch, but it is so on a much grander scale. The order and complexity of the universe far exceeds that of a watch, and we may therefore infer that the designer of the universe is correspondingly greater than designers of watches.

One objection to this argument is that the analogy between a watch and the universe is too weak to support the inference to a designer of the universe. Another objection is that arguments from analogy are too limited in the kinds of conclusion that they can support, and so force those who use them into an anthropomorphism that is inconsistent with theism.

The Argument from Fine-Tuning

If you and I were each to independently write down a number between one and a thousand, to compare those numbers, and to find that they were identical, then this would stand in need of explanation. If we were to repeat this test ten times, each time finding that the numbers that we had written down were identical, then this would be strong evidence that what was happening was more than a mere coincidence.

This is because the theory that there is some connection between my number and your number explains the succession of agreements between our numbers in a way that the theory that there isn’t doesn’t. If there were some connection between the numbers that each of us is writing down, then we might expect our numbers to be the same. If there were no connection, then the succession of agreements would be vastly improbable. The succession of agreements therefore confirms the theory that there is some causal connection between our respective selections of our numbers.

The argument from fine-tuning, a form of teleological argument for the existence of God, is the argument that the state of the universe, like the succession of agreements in our numbers, stands in need of explanation. The state of the universe, the argument suggests, confirms the theory that the universe was created by an intelligent being for the purpose of supporting life, just as the succession of agreements between our numbers in the example above confirms the theory that there is some cause of their agreement.

What is it about the universe, then, that requires explanation? The argument from fine-tuning suggests that the fitness of the universe for life either involves a series of staggering coincidences, or is the result of intelligent design. There are many ways that the universe might have been, and the overwhelming majority of these would not have been such as to support the development of life. The expansion of matter after the Big Bang, for instance, had to occur at the right rate - fast enough to avoid a Big Crunch but slow enough to allow for the formation of planets - in order for life to arise; it did. The strengths of the physical constants (e.g. the strong force and the weak force) had to fall within certain bounds in order for life to arise; they do. The greater the number of conditions necessary for life, the less likely it is that the universe satisfies these conditions by chance. The argument from fine-tuning has now been developed to include a vast number of such conditions.

A Weak Analogy

The argument from analogy is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments project observed regularities to similar unobserved cases. If every observed raven to date has been black then we are justified in inferring that the next observed raven will also be black. We are not, however, justified in inferring that the next observed bird will be black unless we have good evidence for believing that the next observed bird will be a raven.

Paley’s argument from design has the following structure: (1) Ordered systems a, b and c have designers.

(2) The universe is an ordered system.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a designer.

Paley’s argument thus projects an observed regularity - the observation that certain ordered systems have designers - to an unobserved case, namely that of the universe. Paley’s arguments thus rests on an analogy; it is only if the universe is relevantly similar to the ordered systems a, b and c that Paley’s inductive inference will be justified.

Whether the universe is relevantly similar to the ordered systems a, b and c is debatable. Opponents of Paley’s argument object that only the observation of various other universes with designers would provide a pattern of observations that would justify the inference that this universe has a designer. Defenders of Paley point out that the inference is from order to design, and that it is irrelevant in what kind of system that order is found, whether it be a universe or a watch.

Analogy and Anthropomorphism

The argument from analogy is a form of the argument from design. It takes the analogy between the order of the universe and the order of a watch to support the inference that the universe, like a watch, has a designer. One objection to this argument is that the analogy between a watch and the universe is weak. Another objection is that arguments from analogy are too limited in the conclusions that they can offer, that analogies can be pressed too far.

If we are justified in inferring that like cases have like causes, as the argument from analogy suggests, then we can prove more than that the universe has a designer. Watches, to remain with Paley’s example, have corporeal designers. Watches have teams of designers. The designers of watches are finite, mortal, and flawed. By the principle that like effects have like causes, then, we can infer not only that the universe, like a watch, has a designer, but that the universe, like a watch, has several corporeal, mortal and flawed designers.

The only kind of conclusion that the argument from analogy can yield is that God, the creator of the universe, resembles man, the creator of watches. It forces anthropomorphism upon those who use it. This, though, does not get the theist to the conclusion that he is aiming to prove. To prove the existence of a community of gods that are like unto men would be to return to something like the Roman pantheon. If this is the conclusion that the argument from analogy supports then that argument is of little use to theism.

In response to this objection, the theist might claim that he can concede that the argument from analogy pushes him towards anthropomorphism without either rejecting that argument or holding that God is exactly like men. The argument from analogy provides evidence, he might say, but that evidence is defeasible; where opposing evidence is available the conclusions of the argument from analogy are to be rejected. There is no counter-evidence in the case of the inference to an intelligent, powerful designer, he might say, and so these conclusions are to be accepted. There is, however, counter-evidence in the case of the inference to, for instance, a corporeal designer. What this evidence is will be for the theist to specify, but this is one route that he might go.

Alternatively, the theist might try to rest his case upon Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor states, roughly, that the simplest explanation of a given set of evidence is to be preferred to more complicated explanations. The existence of a designer of the universe is required by the evidence, the theist might suggest, but further details about the nature of this designer are not. It might be that there is one designer, it might be that there are several; the designer or designers might be corporeal, or mortal, or they might not be. The simplest explanation of the evidence, though, is to postulate one designer, and to leave it at that. Further details unnecessarily complicate the explanation of the order in the universe, and so are unwarranted.

The Moral Argument

The transcendental argument from morality is the argument from the existence of morality to the existence of God. The existence of God, it suggests, is a necessary condition for the existence of morality.

Morality consists of a set of commands; it does not describe the way that the world is, but rather prescribes the way that the world ought to be; it tells us what to do. Commands, however, cannot exist without there being a commander, and there must therefore be some being that issued the commands that constitute morality.

This being, however, cannot have been a human being. For a command only carries as much authority as does its commander, but the authority of morality exceeds the authority of any human being. In fact, the commands that constitute morality carry ultimate authority; if morality prescribes that I perform one act, but prudence, or any other non-moral consideration, prescribes that I perform another, then all things considered I ought to perform the act prescribed by morality. Moral considerations, then, outweigh all other considerations. The authority that issued the commands that constitute morality must therefore be an ultimate authority. The only ultimate authority, however, is God. The existence of morality therefore depends on, and so demonstrates, the existence of God. (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.

(2) For every command there is a commander.

Therefore:

(3) There is a commander that commanded morality.

(4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.

(5) Morality carries ultimate authority.

Therefore:

(6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.

(7) Only God carries ultimate authority.

Therefore:

(8) The commander that commanded morality is God.

Therefore:

(9) God exists.

The Argument from Religious Experience

The argument from religious experience is the argument that God must exist because he is the object of certain experiences. It is only possible to experience that which exists, it is argued, and so the phenomenon of religious experience is taken to demonstrate the existence of God.

This argument assumes that religious experiences are a type of perceptual experience, i.e. a type of experience in which something external is perceived. Some, though, would argue that religious experiences are more akin to imaginings than they to perception, that the object of the experience is not something that exists objectively in the world but rather is something that exists subjectively in the mind of the person having the experience.

Objections may also be raised along lines suggested by traditional philosophical scepticism. There exist powerful philosophical arguments that our experiences of the external world, i.e. of the familiar everyday objects around us, are insufficient to justify belief in their existence. Descartes’ argument from dreaming is the best known of these, though external world scepticism can be traced back at least as far as ancient Greece and Pyrrho of Elis. If our familiar and lucid experiences of the external world are insufficient to justify belief in its existence, though, then how much more uncertain must be the connection between barely tangible religious experiences and belief in God.

The Argument from Miracles

Miracles have traditionally been taken as validations of religious claims. If the Bible is to be believed, then miraculous signs and wonders that testified that it was God working through him accompanied Jesus’ ministry. His resurrection from the dead was the greatest of these miracles, and is still frequently taken today to be a solid reason for believing in the existence of God.

Setting aside the question as to just how strong the evidence for the resurrection, or for any of the other miracles reported in the New Testament, is, religious sceptics frequently cite Hume as having undermined any such argument for belief in the existence of God. Hume noted that there are two factors to assess in deciding whether to believe any given piece of testimony: the reliability of the witness and the probability of that to which they testify.

The testimony of a witness that is both honest and a good judge of that to which they testify is worth much. The testimony of a witness who is either dishonest or not in a position to know that to which they testify is worth little. The reliability of the witness is therefore something that is to be taken into account in deciding whether to believe anything on the basis of testimony.

The probability of that to which they testify, however, is also relevant. If a witness testifies to sighting a flying pig then it is more likely that their testimony is false than that their testimony is true, even if they are a reliable witness.

The reliability required of a witness in order for his testimony to justify belief in that to which he testifies increases as the probability of that to which he testifies decreases. A miracle, however, is by definition an event that is as unlikely as anything else. It will always, therefore, be more likely that the testimony of a witness to a miracle is false than that it is true. So, at least, goes the Humean argument.

Arguments for Atheism

Though the history of the philosophy of religion has been dominated by attempts to prove the existence of God, there also exist a number of arguments that seek to disprove theism. These range from a priori arguments that the concept of God is logically incoherent, to a posteriori arguments that the world is not the way that it would be if God existed. The atheistic proofs section surveys these arguments for atheism.

Within the Arguments for Atheism section, the arguments are arranged under the following headings: “The Problem of Evil”, “Problems with Omnipotence” (including the paradox of the stone), “Problems with Omniscience”, “Divine Justice” (the injustice of hell), and “The Argument from Autonomy”.

The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so? The simplest answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist. This is by far the most popular argument for atheism.

Problems With Divine Omnipotence

The doctrine of divine omnipotence is the doctrine that God is all-powerful. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This position, if it can be sustained, precludes the existence of God.

Problems with Divine Omniscience

The doctrine of divine omniscience is the doctrine that God is all-knowing. The doctrine of divine omniscience, though, faces several philosophical objections; there are a number of arguments in the philosophy of religion that purport to demonstrate that God cannot possibly know everything. These include arguments that the doctrine of divine omniscience is logically incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the further Christian doctrine of divine impeccability (i.e. the doctrine that God cannot sin), and that it is refuted by the fact of human freedom. If any of these arguments is successful, then there can be no omniscient God.

Problems with Divine Justice

The doctrine of divine justice is also subject to criticism. First of all, it appears to conflict with the idea that God is forgiving. A just God sees that each person gets what he or she deserves; a forgiving God sees that some people’s sins go unpunished. Second, the Christian view of heaven and hell appear in many ways to be unjust. Hell, for instance, appears to inflict an infinitely great punishment upon those who are sent there. How, though, can any finite sin deserve infinite punishment? Just punishments and rewards are proportionate to the badness or goodness of the person that deserves them. Heaven and hell though, are all or nothing. They therefore cannot be just.

The Argument from Autonomy

The argument from autonomy is the argument that the existence of morally autonomous agents is inconsistent with the existence of God, and so that the fact that morally autonomous agents do exist disproves the existence of God. God, if he exists, is worthy of worship. If a being is truly worthy of worship, though, then he is entitled to our unconditional obedience. Moral agents, however, cannot be required to give unconditional obedience to any agent. Moral agency requires autonomy, and so the idea of a moral duty to give up one's autonomy is incoherent; in giving up one's autonomy one would cease to be a moral agent so would cease to have moral duties at all. We cannot, therefore, have a duty of unconditional obedience to any agent, and there therefore cannot be any agent that worthy of worship. There can therefore be no God.