THE
BASIC (CRUDE) COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, DEDUCTIVE VERSION
(1) Everything has a cause.
Therefore:
(2) The World (Universe) has a cause.
(3) The cause of the World we call “God”.
(4) So God exists.
Problems: (a) It follows from (1) that God has a cause. But God is
supposed to be the cause of “everything”. If so, then He
would be a cause of Himself – this seems unintelligible.
(b) It is often objected that we do not (yet) have reason to think that the
cause we have decided to call “God” has any of the other properties
we associate with the term. [Reply: True, but it would be an impressive
beginning if we could show that “the World” was caused by
something].
(c) Modern Quantum Mechanics has been highly confirmed, and according to that
theory some events simply do not have causes in the usual sense (although they
have some probability of occurring.)
(d) In any case, we must ask about the status of the principle
“Everything has a cause”. What is the basis for our belief or
acceptance of this principle?
(The) Principle(s) of Sufficient Reason:
PSI. For everything that happens (or is true), there is a cause or explanation.
PSII. For every thing that comes into existence, there is a cause or
explanation for its coming into existence.
PSIII. For every contingent thing that exists, there is a cause or explanation
for its existence.
“BIG BANG” INDUCTIVE VERSION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) There is a tremendous amount of evidence, both empirical
and on the basis of highly confirmed theories that the Universe, including
Space-time itself, began at a singularity (“point”) some 13.5
billion years ago.
(2) So, probably, the natural Universe
began to exist some 13.5 billion years ago.
So:
(3) The hypothesis that the natural Universe was created by a
very powerful personal Being outside of Space and Time is confirmed by the
observed evidence.
BAYES’S THEOREM
Bayes’s Theorem: The probability of a (possible) hypothesis on the
total evidence after a prediction of the hypothesis is observed is a certain
function of: (1) the probability of the hypothesis on the evidence before the
hypothesis, (2) the probability of alternative hypotheses before the
observation of the evidence, and (3) the ability of the hypothesis and its
alternatives to explain the evidence, viz.:
Pr(hb given o) =
Pr(hb)x Pr(o given h)
Pr(hb)×Pr(o given h) + Pr(~hb)×Pr(o given ~hb)
Pr(p given q): The probability of p given q
hb : the probability of the hypothesis before
the observation
o : the observed prediction
~hb : the probability that the hypothesis is false (that
some other hypothesis is correct) before the observation
FACT: The hypothesis that the
Universe was created by a personal Being outside of Space and Time went up when
the occurrence of the Big Bang was confirmed.
QUALIFIER: Every possible hypothesis that entails that the Universe had a
beginning a finite time ago was also confirmed to a degree by the confirmation
of the Big Bang.
OBSERVATION: In general if a theory is formulated before, and
independently of, the observation of an occurrence implied by the theory, the
theory is more highly confirmed by the evidence than otherwise.
Example: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was confirmed by the
observation of its predicted consequence that light rays would bend when they
pass the sun. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity also implies
the observed perturbations of the orbit of Mercury – but the perturbation
was known by Einstein before formulated this theory.
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG’S (PARTLY) DEDUCTIVE VERSION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. [A
“principle of sufficient reason”]
(2) The Universe (i.e., the physical world) began to exist.
(3) The Universe has a cause.
(a) Is it deductively valid?
(b) Are the premises reasonable?
(a) Yes, but of course we are interested in the overall
argument structure of which this is just a sub-argument.
A DEDUCTION OF THE CONCLUSION FROM THE PREMISES
Universal Instantiation (UI):
Everything is an F.
The entity E is an F.
(1) All A’s are B’s. [Premise]
(2) If S is an A, then S is a B.
[(1), UI]
(3) S is an A. [Premise]
(4) S is a B.
[(3),(4), MP]
A = things that begin to exist
B = things that have causes
S = the Universe
(b) The first premise is a version of the “Principal of Sufficient
Reason”. How is this known? It doesn’t seem to be a
necessary truth, knowable by logical intuition. If it is merely confirmed
by experience, are we justified in applying it to the “Big Bang”
– a unique event?
(b) The second premise seems to be strongly supported by the
evidence (i.e., by an inductive argument)– although there are alternative
hypotheses that have been proposed. Craig argues that they are at present
scientifically and philosophically suspect.
Vacuum Fluctuation Models:
The beginning of the present universe arose as a “random
fluctuation” in a quantum field in its lowest energy state (a so called
“quantum vacuum”).
“NOTHINGNESS IS UNSTABLE” (?)
“Many philosophers past and present think that the question of why
something exists rather than nothing is unscientific. Some have claimed
that the question is meaningless because it could never, even in principle, be
answered. Others have claimed that the question lies in the realm of
metaphysics, forever beyond the reach of science.
Science has proved these philosophers wrong. Modern
science has not ignored the question of why something exists rather than
nothing. For the first time ever, the question has a possible scientific
answer based on the idea that because nothingness is unstable, the universe
necessarily exists. Why is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately,
because something – the universe – necessarily exists”
[Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin, Wisdom Without Answers: A Guide to the
Experience of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (
Objections and Problems:
(i) If “Nothingness” is a name, then the theory assumes that
something exists (the quantum vacuum in its lowest state) and that fluctuations
occur in it. This is not something from nothing. If
“Nothingness” is not a name, then the claim is meaningless.
(ii) The theory assumes that the laws of quantum mechanics are eternal and
operated in the quantum vacuum even “prior” (somehow) to the
development of the observed space-time universe. What is the nature of
these “laws”? Have they always “existed” or been
in operation? Are they necessarily existent? How can such things
fit into a purely “naturalistic” picture of reality? [Davies evades
the question]
(iii) There are (apparently) serious theoretical difficulties with vacuum
fluctuation models – they imply that “universes” will spring
into being at every point in the “vacuum” and will collide and
coalesce. Such a result is not observed.
Return to homepage
MULTI-VERSE MODELS
A multi-verse model is any scientific theory that postulates that our present
observed universe is only one among many (somehow) existing universes. On
some of these there are infinitely many co-existing universe inaccessible to
one another. On other versions, various universes are arising within a
sort of “super space-time” (The vacuum fluctuation models mentioned
above are of this sort).
All such models are highly speculative and not confirmed by known
observations. Some (like the ‘vacuum fluctuation’ models)
have theoretical scientific difficulties. Others, e.g. “many
possible worlds” models, have philosophical difficulties.
Conclusion: At present the view that the natural universe began to exist
13.5 billions years ago, originating from a “singularity”, is the
most reasonable.