The Cosmological Argument Part I: Summary

While the best arguments for the existence of God at present are riffs on the teleological argument (the argument from order, purpose, and beauty in the universe, often styled the argument from design), it has historically been something of a secondary argument. The most important argument for God's existence, historically, has been the cosmological argument. So, to start off my blogging career, I might as well give a basic exposition of the argument.

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. The form I'm going to be presenting will be based on the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, particularly the proof of God's existence in "De Ente et Essentia," the Summa Theologica sections I.4.1, I.4.2, and I.11.3.

Everything that exists has its existence either through its own nature or from some external cause. Not everything can have its existence from an external cause. For nothing can give what it does not have, but a cause that must itself be caused has nothing to give but the metaphysical equivalent of an IOU. Therefore, something exists that has its existence through its own nature. Now, whatever a thing has through its own nature either is the nature itself or else it comes from the nature. But if a thing's existence were to come from its own nature, the thing would be its own cause, which is absurd. Thus, there is a thing in which nature and existence are the same. In short, there exists a thing constituted wholly by its act of existence. Further, while existence considered as an abstraction covering all of reality is empty as a concept, existence considered as a constitutive principle of any particular thing exhausts the positive content of the thing itself. The natures of things in our experience are not and cannot be anything positive added to existence, making it more positive or in some way completing it, for the only thing outside of existence is non-existence. It follows, then, that when a thing's nature is distinct from its act of existence, the nature is a restrictive principle, a limiting principle. But a thing constituted solely by its act of existence, there is no distinct nature to serve as a limiting principle. As such, this first cause must be absolute and transcendent. Any attribute that doesn't entail limitation and the lack of which would be a limitation may truly be predicated of this thing in some sense or other. Thus, since time, space, and energy are limiting principles, this first cause immaterial, eternal, and omnipresent. However, since evil, ignorance, and weakness all entail limitation, this being must be good, wise, and powerful to an infinite degree. This in turn entails that there can only be one such being. For there to be more than one such being, there would have to be some real difference between them. But both are already infinite, so there's "no room" for anything else to be added to either of them. Nor can there be anything that either of them lack, because that would contradict the established fact of their transcendence.

The argument, if successful brings us to the conclusion that there exists a single self-existent cause of the universe that is itself transcendent, immaterial, eternal, omnipresent, infinitely good, infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful. In the immortal words of the Angelic Doctor, "et hoc dicimus Deum." So, the question is whether or not the argument succeeds.

 The argument requires some detailed metaphysical background, including a constituent ontology on which every entity is analyzed in terms of metaphysical co-principles, as well as a "thick" concept of existence. The second post in this series will be a defense of these concepts.

The argument in the form I present it here also relies on the acceptance of a form of what would now be styled as the "Principle of Sufficient Reason." However, this is not to be confused with Leibniz's explicit formulation of the PSR. Philosophers universally took it for granted that a reason of some kind or other could be discerned for every state of affairs, that the universe as a whole is in some sense intelligible. This attitude was held for more than in the face of what must have seemed like a universe on the brink of falling into chaos at all times. For some reason, this sort of attitude was only questioned after empirical science had begun to uncover entirely new, previously undreamt-of levels of intelligibility in the "sublunary" material world. The third post in this series will include a defense of the attitude of the ancients.

The argument also relies on the rejection of things that cause themselves, and of an infinite series of causes. A more detailed defense of this rejection will be provided in the fourth post in this series.

The fifth post in the series will be a defense of the coherence of the concept of divine simplicity which serves as the intermediary conclusion of the argument.

The sixth post in the series will defend the notion that existence is to be viewed as the ultimate perfection, and that the natures of composite things serve as limiting principles that add nothing to being that wasn't there initially.

The seventh and final post in the series will defend the concept of the identity of indiscernibles that the argument that there can be only one absolutely transcendent being relies upon.

In the end, I consider the cosmological argument to be a conclusive and compelling one. While the metaphysical background is complex, and many would view the concepts as being antiquated or impossible to defend in light of the advances made by modern science and philosophy, the concepts this argument rests on themselves rest on facts of everyday life that we all take for granted, facts that no one really rejects.

For those who don't know Latin, "Pro Deo, Pro Veritate" means "For God, For Truth." Every post will be intended to defend or explicate the truth of the Christian worldview in one way or another. So, in a sense, this blog is no different from any of the thousands of other blogs that are doing the exact same things I intend to do, save for the fact that many of those other blogs are by professionals in their fields, whereas I have (as of this post) barely wrapped up my first year of college. This being the case, I feel that I need to say a thing or two about why I'm adding my voice to the cacophony.

My first reason for starting a blog is that I want a place to put arguments of my own devising. I read about apologetics, philosophy, and science whenever I get the chance, so my mind is often abuzz with arguments for and against whatever I read about last. Moreover, having spent some time as a poster on the CARM forums, I have a general idea of the point of view from which skeptics will challenge whatever apologetic arguments I may be reading about, so after reading, I often ask myself how the arguments could be strengthened against possible lines of critique. Then I have a homework assignment, a short walk, or a meal with friends, and whatever progress I made with the arguments may be lost. A blog gives me a place to store my thoughts and keep track of how my apologetic strategies evolve over time. Of course, this could be accomplished just as well by a number of files on my personal computer, so there's obviously more to the story.

My second reason for starting a blog is that I have been blessed with a good intellect as far as intellects go, and I want to use it for my Lord. That's not to say that I have anything even close to equaling the talents of the professionals in their fields, but it is to say that I have a limited but real talent of my own. Keeping my ideas in my own head would be to bury my talent. Putting them down where others can access them at least allows for the possibility of a "return on investment." Perhaps I'll be able to convince a lay skeptic or two. Maybe I'll stumble upon an argument of value that a greater mind will be able to take and run with. If I keep my ideas to myself, they're worthless. If I put them where they can be seen, then God can use them if He so desires.

My third and final reason is that I simply enjoy a good conversation. I enjoyed the dialogue and debate on CARM, I enjoy learning about science and philosophy, and I enjoy composing arguments relating to these subjects. Moreover, my ideas and arguments are strengthened by opposition, just as steel is hardened by fire. This being the case, while the net may not need another amateur apologist's two cents, this amateur apologist could certainly use the opportunities for dialogue that the net has to offer.