issues for cosmo

Question 1

IS A FIRST CAUSE NECESSARY?

Answer 1

Most of the cosmological arguments assume something along the lines of ‘there can’t be an infinite chain of causes’ (except the cosmological arguments from contingency). For example, they say stuff like there must have been a first cause or a prime mover.

But we can respond by rejecting this claim. Why must there be a first cause? Perhaps there is just be an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever.

Question 2

possible response:

Answer 2

An infinite chain of causes would mean an infinite amount of time has passed prior to the present moment
If an infinite amount of time has passed, then the universe can’t get any older (because infinity + 1 = infinity)
But the universe is getting older (e.g. the universe is a year older in 2020 than it was in 2019)
Therefore an infinite amount of time has not passed
Therefore there is not an infinite chain of causes

Question 3

HUME: ‘EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE’ IS NOT AN ANALYTIC TRUTH

Answer 3

Another assumption (or premise) of many of the cosmological arguments above (not so much the contingency ones) is something like ‘everything has a cause’.

But Hume points out that ‘everything has a cause’ is not an analytic truth. It’s logically possible for something to exist and not have a cause of its existence.

Of course, all of our experience in the physical world tells us everything has a cause. But just because we’ve never seen something happen without a cause, doesn’t mean it’s never happened. It just means we’ve never seen it.

Even physics says something along these lines. Before the big bang, there was no time and space (because time and space came into existence at the same time as the universe itself). So how can we be sure laws derived from our experience within time and space apply to something outside of it?

So, just because our experience tells us ‘everything has a cause’ is true, we can’t be certain of it in the same way we can be certain of analytic truths.

And if we can doubt the premise ‘everything has a cause’, then we can doubt the cosmological argument.

Question 4

RUSSELL: FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

Answer 4

The fallacy of composition is an invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this property.
eg. Just because a sheet of paper is thin, it doesn’t mean things made from sheets of paper are thin. For example, a book with enough sheets of paper can be thick.

Applying this to the cosmological argument, we can raise a similar objection to Hume’s above: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the universe itself has a cause.

Or, to apply it to Leibniz’s cosmological argument: just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, doesn’t mean the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence. Russell says: “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”

Question 5

Possible response:

Answer 5

Ok, but everything within the universe exists contingently
And if everything within the universe didn’t exist, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist either (because that’s all the universe is: the collection of things that make it up)
So the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it
And so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence

Question 6

IS THE FIRST CAUSE GOD?

Answer 6

Aquinas’ first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause. But they don’t show that this first cause is God.

So, even if we accept that there was a first cause, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists – much less the specific being described in the concept of God.

So, even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists.

Question 7

Possible response:

Answer 7

This objection doesn’t work so well against Descartes’ version because he specifically reasons that there is a first cause and that this first cause is an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Similarly, you could argue that any being that exists necessarily (such as follows from Aquinas’ third way and Leibniz’s cosmological argument) would be God.