Reposted from:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on the premise that every effect must have a cause, but to avoid infinite regress there must be a first cause: something that started it all. Put in another and more sophisticated way, often called the Contingency Argument: everything in existence depends on something else for its existence, but nothing has a reason for its existence contained within it. So the world itself must depend on something else for its existence, a "something else" that must have existence in itself, otherwise that would also have to be caused by something else, ad infinitum.

This "something else" is the only thing that has reason for existence within itself, something that has necessary existence, and cannot not exist, unlike everything else in the world. Theists maintain that this is God.

There are many difficulties with such views. To begin with, the original premise that every effect must have a cause isn't true if there is a first cause. There is also absolutely no reason why, if there is a first cause, that it should be God. And if there were a first cause, who is to say that it still exists?

Why, too, should there be a first cause and not numerous first causes? And why shouldn't more recent antecedent causes be the causes, as opposed to a remote cause? In any case, once a first cause that is itself uncaused is accepted, then there is no reason why there cannot be other uncaused causes. Moreover, given the immensity of the cosmos and a universe that stretches out through vast, irregular distances, infinity is neither improbable nor impossible, making the idea of a first cause unnecessary in an infinite universe that is self-contained.

Once again, the more theistic the conception of a first cause, the more problematic the concept. Theists like to think of God as the "First Cause", one that created the cause-effect principle of the universe. But even though present theories accept the "Big-Bang" origins of our universe, there is no reason to posit God as orchestrator of it. In any case, if such a God exists, why would such a "being" wish to create such a world? Was he not perfect enough without it? Did he simply want to be a "creator"? And if he did, what caused him to do so? And why should any first cause be animate, conscious, and intelligent, as theists suggest?

There is no need, in fact, for the universe to have any reason for its existence; the fact that it does exist is sufficient. There is no need, in fact, for a theistic supernaturalism to explain the origins of the universe; there may be no real origins to explain. Existence itself is the "first cause" and all subsequent causality arises in it.

Another angle to such cosmological argument is the idea of the "First Cause" being an "Unmoved Mover;" that is to say, that which does not change, but which causes the transience and change of all other things. The analogy is often given of an engine that pulls the carriages of a train (or a hand moving a stick), each coach being dependent on the one before for its mobility, while the engine is the ultimate mover.

But it is not a good analogy because it demonstrates well that the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover" has to be part of the natural process to have an effect on it. It is not able to affect it if transcendent to it, as when the engine is separated from its coaches. While it is true that there is an element of "sameness" and continuity in an existence that is subject to flux and change -- an acorn, for example, grows into an oak tree and not into a sycamore tree -- there is no reason why there has to be a changeless prime mover to bring about the continuity amidst flux. Indeed, to posit so would necessitate change in the mover, again, like the engine that pulls the train. In any case, sub-atomic physics is beginning to show us that all existence is subject to motion but that it is not all neatly cause-effect natured.

The progression from acorn to oak as an analogy is important in another way. Theists accept that a "First Cause" is superior to the effects that follow it. But in fact, as far as existence is concerned, it is the case that effects are more frequently superior to their causes; life could hardly evolve were it otherwise. So the tiny acorn becomes the mighty oak. In fact, the more remote the cause, the more unrelated it is to an evolutionary end product. Causality is hierarchized in favour of multiple effects and not their remote causes. On the other hand, a multiplicity of antecedent causes normally inform one specific effect. It makes no sense to posit a single, remote cause.