Statement of Intention:
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is nothing new. In fact, atheists indicate that they are getting tired of refuting it over and over again. But because of recent advances in science and philosophy, the cosmological argument is actually stronger than ever.
My intention here is not to simply restate the same argument that has always been made in the same way that it has always been presented, but to present it in a clear and concise, up-to-date, relevant way that internally addresses the claims that atheists make in their responses to it.
Presentation of Argument:
1) Anything that exists either a) has a cause outside of itself (and is a “contingent being,”) or b) is causeless or self-causing (and is a “necessary being.”)
*Note that the cause that resulted in a contingent being is itself a thing that exists, and thus it also must be either a contingent or a necessary being.
2) Since a contingent being exists, it must be a) the result of an infinite string of other contingent beings, or b) the direct result of a necessary being, or of a string of one or more contingent beings that ends in a necessary being.
It should be obvious once these concepts are understood that the vast majority of entities that we can identify in our world (physical objects of all sorts, people, etc.) are in fact the result of a very long line of contingent beings.
So is this very long string of contingent beings infinite, or does it end in the existence of a necessary being? This brings us to our third premise.
3) An infinite series of causes never reaches a final product, so nothing that exists in the present can have resulted from an infinite string of contingent beings.
*Mentally note the difference between “eternal” and “infinite.” Eternity merely indicates that something is outside of time, while infinity indicates a quantity with no bounds. Infinity may be a useful concept in abstract mathematics, but in reality it is by definition an impossibility for us to have arrived here from an infinite string of previous causes, since one more cause would always have to be added before we could arrive at the present, and one more, and one more, etc. In any case, it is unsatisfactory to answer the question “where do contingent beings come from” with the response “other contingent beings make them.”
4) In light of these three previous premises, since either an infinite string of contingent beings or the existence of at least one necessary being must have brought us to the present, and since an infinite string of causes can not have done so, a necessary being must exist.
Very well then. A being which either caused itself or has no cause must exist or at least have existed in the past.
Addressing The Most Common Objection:
The common follow-up question: “then where did the first cause come from?” displays a failure to properly understand the argument. If the argument is properly understood, it logically demonstrates that an uncaused or self-caused being must exist, it is an unavoidable conclusion that can only be escaped if one of the premises can be shown false.
Let me illustrate this concept this way: whether you are a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist, you absolutely must acknowledge that something is self-causing or uncaused. It could be the universe. It could be a god. It could be a god that made a god. But you absolutely must stop somewhere and call it the beginning. Without a beginning for your story you can never get to the middle.
Taking the Argument Further:
To suggest that at this point I have proven that God exists would be shortsighted and naive. I have simply proven that something is uncaused or self-caused. So why not the universe? After all, if the laws in the universe can explain its own behavior, why make up a God to go one step beyond the evidence when He is unnecessary to explain the nature of material reality?
The common response to those questions from a thinking believer is that the evidence for the big bang has proven that the universe had a beginning, and if it had a beginning then it had a cause and it thus must be a contingent being. This is reasonable because in reality we observe that a thing can be a certain way in the simple case that it already was a certain way and nothing has changed it, but nothing begins or happens without something causing it to be so.
But let us humor the hypothetical atheistic standpoints that the universe caused itself suddenly at the big bang, or that an uncaused set of laws called it into existence. The laws and constants that govern our reality, and the math behind it all, are said to be sufficient to have called the universe into existence, creating matter, time, etc. in the process.
The laws that govern the universe might possibly be capable of this act… if they were actually capable of doing any act! But laws don’t actually govern, they simply describe. The laws of nature do not have authority, ordering around the universe, commanding it to behave a certain way. They simply describe for us the patterns that we have found in the universe’s behavior.
In fact, that atheists would suggest that natural laws “govern” our universe, essentially commanding it to act a certain way and “calling” the universe into existence betrays the intuitiveness of the idea that a mind really is at work here! Something with agency, something with the power and authority to establish such organized behavior is indeed at work, and natural laws describe this agent.
The bottom line is that acts of governing, commanding, and calling are only doable by a being with agency. Natural laws are merely descriptive principles of observed patterns in our universe, and descriptions of recognized patterns cannot do anything, they are mere information.
Whatever the necessary being behind everything is, it has caused our universe to behave in the way that our natural laws describe. Logic has brought us to God’s doorstep.
See a problem with my argumentation? Point it out in the comments, I’m always looking for new clarity.