God, Causality, and the Universe
This paper explores the Cosmological Argument for God's Existence. While refutation exists from those who hold to a philosophy of naturalistic materialism, the rationality of a supernatural cause of all things is evident
Introduction
Through-out history, man has looked at the star-filled night sky and wondered at the purpose behind its existence. Scientists and Philosophers alike are engendered to ask the questions why and how. The ancient philosopher Isaiah declared, “lift up your eyes on high and see, who created these?” (Isaiah 40:26), reminding his people that what we see should lead us to ask why we see it.[1] Popular astronomer Carl Sagan, when explaining how stars contain the necessary materials for life, once said, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”[2] He made this statement implying that the only thing made “from scratch” or out of nothing is the universe itself, therefore, everything else in existence is contingent on the universe’s beginning. To describe the nature of all matter, Sagan (an atheist) appealed to a first cause.
The law of causality states that every effect must have a cause. If both philosophy and science conclude that there was a beginning to our universe (a first event), then we should also inquire about the first cause if it is our desire to understand the truth about our world and its existence. While refutation exists from those who hold to a philosophy of naturalistic materialism, the rationality of a supernatural cause of all things is evident from both philosophical reasoning and scientific evidence. The universe’s existence is best explained as created by God, because the cosmological argument requires an essential and supernatural first cause.
Context
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is the version referred to hereafter because its formulation encapsulates a philosophical and scientific evaluation of causality. The argument can be summarized in a syllogism as follows:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence[3]
The Problem of Infinite Regression
A fundamental rule of knowledge is that all effects must have a cause, but this creates an incongruity if one believes in the possibility of an infinite regression of time and space. The cosmological argument formulated by William Lane Craig explains that it is impossible to have an actual infinite series of any number of things, especially in view of time and space, therefore there is a termination point or first cause to the series of time past[4]. The mathematical concept of an infinity of numbers may be used theoretically but cannot contend that an infinite series is actually possible. Therefore, an infinite series of past events is untenable and irrational, and it is reasonable to assume a causal agent for the beginning of all time, space, and material.
To consider what is meant by the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things to exist, it is important to understand the difference between theoretical mathematical sets and an infinite series in reality. The infinite set in mathematics is useful in the abstract world, for example, when discussing the division of a finite object. To further conceptualize this example, we can visualize a mile-long road which can be split into a half-mile, and further divided, and theoretically divided infinitely.[5] This is an example of using mathematics to conceptualize a potential infinity.
While it may be mathematically useful to describe how a numerical set could be described using the concept of infinite numbers, it is an absurd notion to contend for an actual infinite series of real things. A reality of infinite things would create the overwhelming problem that when you think you have finally counted the series to infinity, you can always add (or remove) one more thing to the series of infinite things to arrive at a number of infinite things.
As an example of how difficult this problem would be, let’s propose that you have an infinite number of guests occupying an infinite number of rooms in a hotel. This hotel is fully booked. However, you can decide to add one more guest because you have an infinite number of rooms available. In this scenario, you could have a line of pending guests waiting to be checked in and continue to add guests because you have an infinite number of rooms. When you add the guests, you will end up with an infinity of hotel rooms and an infinity of guests. If you started with an infinity of hotel rooms and guests, how can an infinite number of guests fully occupy an infinite number of rooms and yet, there are available rooms?[6]
There are some that persist that an actual infinite number of things is possible, dismissing the absurdities described above, because of mathematical set theory. J. Howard Sobel critiques the cosmological argument by implying that an infinity is possible because mathematics allows for a set of an infinite multitude. However, he takes a side-lined approach to argue the point by resorting to the use of language in mathematics rather than describing a theory that explains the possibility of the infinite. He states, “what is in the name ‘number’?” and “would not an erstwhile infinite multitude by any other name […] remain as multitudinous?” These objections are provided when he critiques the claim that any multitude of things requires a number to count it.[7] He’s stating that the only reason there’s a problem with an infinity of things is because we can’t count to infinity, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility of an infinite series. In summary, the claim being made is that a multitude can exist infinitely, and we do not need to have a number to count it.
Sobel’s appeal to mathematics, the linguistic use of numbers, and the possibility of an infinite multitude is being used to repudiate the philosophical claim that the universe had a beginning. But the problem here is that using the possibility of an infinite multitude, counted or not, commits a fallacy of circular reasoning because there are many other ways of understanding mathematics and infinity. For example, an anti-realist view of mathematics states that there are no such things as mathematical objects and most definitely not an infinite number of them.[8] One must presume that mathematical sets can be infinite for the objection to work. Craig states, “it is evident in a number of places in his book that Sobel is operating on the presumption of Platonism.” [9] By invoking a Platonic view of mathematical objects, Sobel presumptuously rules out alternative views. Therefore, the objection is erroneous because it fails to provide an adequate refutation to the problem of infinite regression and its reasonable conclusion of a first cause.
Given the irrationality of the notion of a real infinite series, we can deduce that an actual infinite number of past events is also absurd. For instance, today we could look back to the past and count the number of days prior all the way to infinity, which we have already established is an impossibility. Since an infinite past is inconceivable, there must be a first event in time. If there was a first event in time and space, the causal principle necessitates a first cause to that event. Such a first cause would exist outside of time and therefore would be beginning-less. Further, this cause would exist necessarily without regard to material and space. Such a cause would be eternal, immaterial, and incorporeal, which are all attributes of the Christian God.
Does the Cosmological Argument Beg the Question?
One interesting objection has been raised concerning the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Former Christian Pastor, Dan Barker, provides a philosophical rebuttal to the argument by describing how the clause itself requires God’s existence as part of its definition, therefore it begs the question because it assumes God.[10] He states that “In order for this cosmological argument to work, […] it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God” (emphasis in original).[11]
To strengthen his statement, the author presents his own solution to the problem by asking the proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to clearly define all possible beginning-less realities for the first cause. He states, “In order to avoid begging the question, theists must produce one or more real or hypothetical candidates other than God” and, “They must ontologically contend with something else ‘out there’ that is not God. They must define it, and then eliminate it, in order to avoid being accused of begging the question.”[12]
While Barker’s requirements are reasonable based on an appeal to logical analysis, they identify a problem with Barker’s own philosophy. Even though Barker denies the existence of God and holds a strict materialistic view, his request is itself a metaphysical question. Therefore, the requirement of explaining other objects outside of nature self-defeats because he’s using a metaphysical premise to deny a metaphysical premise. He is guilty of his own assertion. Barker would need to explain how his abstract notion can be used to defeat the idea of abstract philosophy.
Also, some philosophers explain that what may appear fallacious at first, may in fact be reasonable because the character of the source is sometimes essential to the argument.[13] In the case of the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument presupposing God, it can only be considered a problem if we’re viewing causality from within nature. A view of causality outside of nature would have to contain the ultimate actuality of all potentiality within nature, because only something actual could create change in another something’s potential.[14] It would be absurd to conclude that a being that is the ultimate actuality is more than one thing. R.C. Sproul confirms, “We don’t have to have an antecedent cause for God, because God, as Aristotle rightly understood, is an uncaused cause and you don’t have to provide a cause for an eternal being.”[15] Therefore, presupposing God, in the sense that an ultimate uncaused cause is hierarchically necessary from outside nature, is not a logical fallacy. In this sense, the universe itself could theoretically be infinite in time and space, but its existence would still be contingent on a causal being that is completely unique and outside nature, i.e. supernatural.
If God Made Everything, Who Made God?
The most common objection to the philosophical conclusions of the cosmological argument is the postulation of “who created the creator?” Prominent atheist and popular author, Richard Dawkins, responds to the idea of a first cause by parlaying the fallacy of an infinite regression to God himself. He suggests that God is part of the chain, so he would need to be part of an infinite regression. He states, “They [cosmological arguments] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.”[16] In a similar fashion, Barker responds to the cosmological argument’s appeal to a first cause when he evokes the memory of his daughter asking the question, “Daddy, if God made everything, who made God?”[17] This is congruent with Dawkins’ line of thinking.
By invoking the question, “who made God,” the two authors are making an error in their judgment on the cosmological argument, specifically, in their conclusion that God should be included when regressing to the first cause. First, the cosmological argument has never stated that God is created or part of nature. Further, the cosmological argument is only concerned with the causation of events that occur within nature. Finally, the cosmological argument always arrives at the conclusion that God is supernatural. If God is supernatural, he is outside nature, time, and space, i.e. the universe. This makes him eternal, not infinite. Frank Turek agreed in a recent debate when he concluded, “Since nature had a beginning, nature can’t be its own cause. The cause must be beyond nature, which is what we mean by the term ‘supernatural.’”[18]
One key issue that must also be addressed is that an atheist must assume a natural cause to the explanation of the universe. Yet, atheists who hold to a naturalistic view are unable to provide an adequate explanation for the universe’s existence. Dawkins readily admits that he is unable to adequately explain the problem of infinite regression, however, he hypothesizes that other theories will one day provide for cosmology what Darwinism has accomplished for biology.[19] He requires that we must allow time for scientific discovery to one day provide such an explanation. This violates the scientific method, because the theory itself is poor. Dawkins would have us wait for evidence to show up to support his theory of a natural cause. Stephen Hawking states, “a theory is a good theory if it […] accurately describe[s] a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements.”[20] It would be reasonable to suspect that Hawking would charge Dawkins of using bad science. Dawkins cannot provide a large class of observations on elements that don’t even exist. Turek explains that naturalistic materialists are exhibiting a faith that science will one day provide an answer.[21] It is interesting that in claiming a natural cause, an atheist must invoke faith.
The Support of Physical Science
While it is possible to continue exploring philosophical arguments for the existence of a first cause, it is advantageous to also add the support of physical science to the discussion, since there are some who hold to a naturalistic view that permits a faith in science alone. Physical science relies on the law of causality, necessitating a space-time regression to a singular event or beginning of the universe to explain the physical universe and its properties. Also, the second law of thermodynamics, when applied to the universe, could suggest that the universe necessitates a finite beginning, and dispute oscillation theories.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving away from us, also deducing that at some earlier time all matter would have to be in the same place. It is at this point in space-time where all known physical laws break down.[22] This point is called a singularity in mathematics and as we’ve already determined is irrational because an actual infinite set of things is an impossibility. When physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose collaborated on their research concerning the singularity, they concluded that general relativity and the observable universe supported the notion that a beginning of space and time occurred at the singularity, and thus the Big Bang Theory is now accepted almost universally among scientists.[23]
Now we know that a fundamental role of science is to explore cause and effect relationship. Whether evaluating simple cells or the entire universe, the scientist’s role is to determine a cause to the observable evidence. This is where the Kalam Cosmological Argument’s second premise and conclusion are supported. However, most opponents of the cosmological argument aren’t contesting the evidence, but rather the character of the cause. Since space, time, and matter have a beginning, a first effect, it would follow that its cause must be space-less, timeless, and matter-less. To remain reasonable, one must agree that these sound like the attributes of the Christian God. But, if the logical conclusion still fails to garner a reasonable acknowledgment, professor Greg Koukl sums it up, “Here’s the simplified version: A Big Bang needs a big Banger. I think that pretty much covers it. Every effect requires a cause adequate to explain it. Pretty obvious.”[24]
While the Big Bang Theory provides effective evidence to support the cosmological argument’s conclusion, it is possible that the second law of thermodynamics may also infer that the universe had a physical beginning. The first law of thermodynamics would assert that the energy of the universe is constant; whereas, the second law supposes that the entropy of the universe always increases.[25] As entropy increases moment by moment, heat energy is running out. The hypothesis is that if the universe is adiabatic, then the second law of thermodynamics requires a finite beginning to the universe. Furthermore, an adiabatic universe would also dispute oscillating theories because of the nature of entropy.
Geisler and Turek both assert that the second law of thermodynamics is effective for the cosmological argument because it not only postulates a beginning to the universe, but it also predicts its inevitable ending. They state that the second law of thermodynamics, called the Entropy Law, asserts that the amount of energy in a closed system dissipates, or in other words, moves from a state of order to disorder.[26] The eschatological implications of this conclusion are obvious and Craig affirms the interpretation that as the universe continues to expand, it will increasingly become cold, dark, and dead.[27] The causal implications of the theory are equally obvious. If the universe was eternally existent in the past, we would have reached the heat death already. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and if there was a beginning, there must be first cause.
One of the most interesting aspects of the second law of thermodynamics, is the consequence it brings for competing theories to big bang cosmology. One such theory is the Oscillating Model, first shaped by some cosmologists in the 1960s to repudiate the need for a first cause.[28] The Oscillating Model speculates that the universe would reach a critical point in its expansion where the internal gravitational pull of its mass would cause a cosmic contraction, and the material parts being unevenly distributed would pass by each other in the contraction, creating a new expansion.[29] The ultimate problem with such expansion and contraction is the fact that entropy always increases across all natural processes creating longer and larger oscillations over time and an eventual heat death still occurs.[30] If there was an infinite past number of cycles, the accumulation of entropy would have already resulted in such a heat death, and we would not be here now to consider alternative theories to the Big Bang Theory.
It is important at this point to admit there are limits to this conclusion. While Geisler, Turek, and Craig all make respected interpretations of the evidence concerning the second law, we must not fall into the same trap that we would accuse scientific naturalists of. That is, we should not use a known scientific principle as complete proof of something when we know that an element of faith is required. Upon researching further, we must conclude that there is no current way we can confirm that the universe is adiabatic. In a personal interview, Dr. Powell responds to the theory and advises that thermodynamics cannot be applied appropriately to the scale of the universe. He states, “Thermodynamics is an experimental science. The universe is too big, and we don’t know what it is bound by or contained in. So, we can’t assume that the observations we make during our very carefully controlled thermodynamics experiments can be applied directly to the issues of cosmology.” [31]
The second law of thermodynamics fully supports a beginning to the universe, requiring a first cause, if, and only if, the universe is fully contained. However, we cannot conclusively apply the law because we don’t have a solid theory concerning what the universe is contained in. However, we can presume that it is likely applicable to the universe and we may use the hypothesis to further our research and provide rational support for a first cause claim.
Are Science and Religion Disparate Worldviews?
In our modern world, it is often assumed that science and religion offer diametrically opposed worldviews. It is easy to picture a battle between the white lab coat adorned scientist intelligently postulating the Big Bang Theory and the black cassock wrapped preacher fervently pontificating Genesis chapter one. This assumed opposition is based on a conviction that science is systematic and logical in its function, whereas, religion is a matter of faith alone.
The inductive nature of the scientific method has provided many answers to the questions of our reality. We know that the earth is spherical, and just how far around it is. We know that the earth revolves around the sun. We also know that the moon creates a gravitational pull from its orbit around the earth to cause the tidal movement of oceans. These are just a few scientific discoveries that have helped mankind understand the physical world.
Science has also been the stimulus to beneficial improvements to civilization that could not have otherwise occurred. Examples of scientific improvement abound including medical advances, communication and transportation technologies, nutritional developments, and affordable leisure activities. It is certainly easy to see how important science is to a modern way of life.
A view of the world that acknowledges the merit of science still leaves unanswered questions. The questions of why we are here and where we came from still exist, no matter how much science has benefited mankind or provided answers to the questions of the physical universe. Even the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking wrote, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”[32] Because of these unanswered questions, we must be willing to examine if science and faith really are as opposed as many would state them to be. The truth is, many scientific discoveries in history were accomplished and supported by people who believed in God. Francis Bacon (credited for the scientific method), Galileo, Boyle, and Newton, were all scientists with a devout belief in God. Einstein once confessed:
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"(emphasis added).[33]
So where do the supposed opposing worldviews come from? It is more likely that this opposition stems from two opposing definitions of science itself. On one side, science is the process of inductive inquiry, what we call the scientific method; on the other hand, science is a philosophical explanation for matter and energy, also called naturalistic materialism (hereafter, “scientism”).[34] When explaining phenomenon that occur within nature, both definitions of science are compatible. But when we ask deeper philosophical questions, the method of science and scientism can be at odds. Scientism rejects the hypothesis of a supernatural cause, even when the method of science may lead the observer to such a conclusion.[35]
To believe that the universe’s existence can best be explained by God, as postulated by the cosmological argument, one must also accept the warrant that belief in God is rational. The method of science can reasonably point us to God as the first cause of the universe. Scientism is, however, wholly opposed to the scientific method when it comes to philosophical questions. Nevertheless, when analyzing the cosmological argument, along with the many other lines of evidence not discussed here, the conclusion would allow for a high degree of probability that belief in God is not only rational, but almost a certainty.
Conclusion
Blaise Pascal, founder of probability theory, argued that reason is not violated in making either choice to accept or reject God, so the prudent man would wager that God exists.[36] The modern-day man should not see their belief in God as irrational. Quite the contrary, science, that is, the method of science supports a rational belief in God. It is not a question of whether religion and science are mutually exclusive, rather, the concern lies in the belief that science alone can be the only means to knowing why and how the universe exists. The prophet Isaiah said, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord,” (Isaiah 1:18); revealing God’s desire to be thought of logically and rationally.
The cosmological argument describes how the law of causality explains to us the reality and character of the first cause to all that exists. Both science and philosophy describe how space, time, and matter have a beginning, which means that the cause cannot be physical, natural, or time bound, even if the effect is. To deny causality, even if it leads us to a supernatural cause for the universe’s existence, is to practice bad science, and requires a faith in naturalistic materialism.[37] Therefore, we can accept that the evidence described by the cosmological argument is conclusive that there is an essential first cause outside of space and time. Since the first cause is immaterial, supernatural, and eternal, we can determine that Theism is true; and when combined with adequate testimony (the Bible) the Christian God, acting as a causal agent, is a rational and highly probable explanation for the existence of the universe.
[1] All Scripture quotation taken from the Eastern Standard Version (ESV), unless otherwise notated.
[2] Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1st edition (New York: Random House, 1980), 230.
[3] William Lane Craig, “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God: Historical and Critical Analyses,” Doctoral thesis, The University of Birmingham, 1977, 429.
[4] Ibid. 434.
[5] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2008), 117. Here Craig introduces how distance can potentially be divided into infinitely many parts.
[6] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 118. Above is a summary of the concept, Craig provides a detailed explanation in his book for the thought-experiment called “Hilbert’s Hotel.”
[7] Jordan Howard Sobel, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God, 1 edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 185, quoted in William Lane Craig, “J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, no. 4 (2006): 565.
[8] William Lane Craig, “J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, no. 4 (2006): 565
[9] Ibid.
[10] Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2008), 131.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Barker, 133-135.
[13] Greg Koukl, “#STRask - July 9, 2018” #STRask with Greg Koukl, Podcast Audio, July 9, 2018, accessed August 2, 2018, https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/strask-with-greg-koukl/id1030958668. Greg Koukl discussed this idea at minute 1:40, where “a fallacy is not always a fallacy” when the source is substantive to the point.
[14] Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017), 24-25.
[15] R.C. Sproul, "Lecture 6, Law of Causality." Defending Your Faith. Video Lecture. Accessed June 22, 2018. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/defending-your-faith/law-of-causality/.
[16] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006., 2006), 101.
[17] Dan Barker, “Cosmological Kalamity,” in Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2008), 130.
[18] Frank Turek, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2015), 3.
[19] Dawkins, 188.
[20] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1998), 10.
[21] Turek, 3.
[22] Hawking, 9.
[23] Hawking, 53.
[24] Greg Koukl, “Why God? – Part 1,” Stand to Reason Solid Ground Articles, January 1, 2018, accessed August 7, 2018, https://www.str.org/SolidGroundJan2018WhyGod1#.W2oRytVKjIU.
[25] R. Clausius, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Dowen Hutchingson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, 1976; Marko E. Popovic, “Research in Entropy Wonderland: A Review of the Entropy Concept.,” Thermal Science 22, no. 2 (March 2018): 1163–78.
[26] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Foreword by David Limbaugh) (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2004),77.
[27] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 143.
[28] E.M. Lifschitz and I.M Khalatnikov, "Investigations in Relativist Cosmology," Advances in Physics 12 (1963,) 207; cited by William Lane Craig, “The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe,” Reasonable Faith Scholarly Writings,” accessed August 8, 2018.
[29] William Lane Craig, “The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe,” Reasonable Faith Scholarly Writings,” accessed August 8, 2018, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/.
[30] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 144.
[31] Nicholas Powell, interview with a PhD Chemist, August 8, 2018.
[32] Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 190.
[33] Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy, and Religion: A Symposium,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, 1-4; “Albert Einstein on Religion and Science,” Internet Sacred Text Archive, accessed August 5, 2018, http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm.
[34] Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 170.
[35] Koukl, 170.
[36] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 68.
[37] Turek, 12. Similar grounds are used here by Turek when debating an atheist that is using bad philosophy and science to cast doubt on causality.