ACCEPT OR REJECT THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AS PROVIDING RATIONALLY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

PHIL 3431: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion
November 20th, 2012

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is considered to be the relationship between the existence of the world or universe and the existence of a being that created this world or universe and maintains its existence. According to many studies, the cosmological argument comes in two forms: the modal cosmological arguments and the temporal kalam cosmological arguments.
The modal cosmological argument
The modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, suggest that the universe existence requires an explanation. In other words, there must be a cause that can explain why the universe exists now. The modal cosmological argument places the universe as a contingent being. A contingent being is something that requires a cause of existence. On the contrary, the cosmological argument explains a second type of being: a necessary being. A necessary being is something that does not require an explanation or cause of its existence, a being that could not have failed to exist. In conclusion, the ultimate cause of everything that exist must then be a necessary being. The modal cosmological argument places this necessary being in God’s existence. The modal cosmological argument bases on the following premises: 1. If something exists, what it takes for that thing to exist must exist. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time
The cosmological argument speak of the universe as the “collection of all beings in space in time.” To explain premise one deeply, I will use myself as an example; my existence and who “I am.” The application of premise one on myself revolves around me being a finite being, limited and constantly changing. I am dependent for my existence on being outside me. The cause of my existence, in the beginning, were my parents. Now, forgetting the cause of my existence does not mean that I become an infinite being, but instead we rely on other factors that my existence depends on. Some of these factors allow me to exist every day, such as air, water, and food. The way that my existence depends on so many factors outside me, is to be contingent; I exist if something else exist within the time of my existence.
This explanation does not state that everything has to be the same way. For this reason, there must be something that does not need of anything else to exist. Obviously the universe cannot be this being, since it’s the collection of all beings changing in space and time. This leads to think that the cause of the universe cannot be a contingent being, instead it would be a necessary being that possesses the characteristics of existing within itself and not depending on anything else.
The temporal Kalam cosmological argument
The temporal kalam cosmological argument deals with the definition of past and its time. These arguments note that statements of an infinite past stretching back in time into infinity is reveal that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. In most circumstances, something that possess a beginning also possesses a cause. For the temporal kalam cosmological argument, it is absurd to think that the existence of the universe has no cause; nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, the universe must have been brought into existence by something outside of the universe itself, a cause. The kalam argument relates and works together with one element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation. This doctrine bases on the very simple story found in the bible, specifically in Genesis chapter 1 and 2. It takes “evolution” as the modern form of the human being to explain a “starting point” in his view of reality.
The premises that serve as base for the kalam argument are: 1. Everything that has a beginning to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
I’d have to agree with the first premise. In the actual mind of a human being, everything that exist and that we can perceive with our five senses; smelling, feeling, touching, seeing, and hearing. So, the premise is consider to be an obvious true. The second premise may create confusion and a big challenge to understand. The universe is considered to be a “collection” of all things that are bounded by time and space. Now, the question that is constantly asked is “did the universe begin to exist? Or has it existed infinitely? This premise has been strongly supported by one theory from natural science: the Big Bang Theory. Along with this, many philosophical arguments have agreed that with it as well. This premise also deals with the two important concepts, infinite task and finite task. If we consider the universe to be an infinite task, we would have to agree in the fact that we will never reach the present. In the case on an infinite task, in order to be “completed” we would need to know and do an “infinite” number of steps, but would that actually help us to reach the end? The answer is no, even if we were on an infinite time. For an infinite time, it would also reach no end, the same as infinite steps. In other words an infinite task can never be completed or can never be done. A good example to see the potential of an infinite matter would be Hilbert’s paradox of the grand hotel. The mistake in thinking about infinity is to think that for a second we could reach any point at all.
The same thing applies if the universe had no beginning. If the universe had no beginning, then it is in fact, infinitely old. This is the part where one can get confused. If the universe is infinitely old, it means that we would have to have passed before, today, an infinite amount of times and so goes for days too in order to reach the present day. But this becomes the problem in parallel with infinity. If the present day has been reached, then it means that the task has been completed up to this point, it contradicts the infinite laws. There can be two interpretations of this: either we haven’t reached the present day or the process was not infinite. In an obvious matter, the present day has been reached, we live in it therefore, the universe began to exist which would lead to the universe having a cause for its coming to being. This is called, by the kamal arguments, a Creator.
After the discussion and explanation of two characteristics from the cosmological arguments, we can reach some questions and conclusions. Is the necessary being anything like God is supposed to be? Is there any prove that God is the one necessary being, creator of the universe? In their explanation they have established and reached the conclusion that there is something outside of the universe that is capable of producing all elements that form part of the universe. But what happens next? Some suggest that having space, time, and gravity as part of the features of a material world, the explanation for such a world then might be timeless and not in space; instead something that is commonly called spirit. But if this would be the case, how would we know that this “spirit” or “eternal force” has human mind perceived characteristics, such as being good and intelligent? Nothing outside the theory can justify this assumption. In order to speak about this claim as we were speaking about God, we would need more evidence than what the cosmological theory provides. Maybe, one of the ways to do so, might relate to the examination in detail of the design of how the universe was put together. Maybe it was part of mass/energy that lead it to evolve into the universe that we know, could it be something that does not necessarily possess the intelligence and personal experience that we think it does. What about the religious experiences that many cultures claim to have? Do some people get to experience God? Is it God or just part of their want/need to believe in a superior being? The reason of the human existence? In the end, whether such “force” is good and valid, is dependent on the capacity of one being able to deal with the problem of evil. So the cosmological argument might have some truth, and in some cases it might be considered the truth about “God.” It is debatable among your background and want/needs of believing.
In conclusion, the possibility that the cosmological argument does work is high, although because of everything that tries to cover, it loses certainty among some of its arguments. It is possible that most of the objections against the cosmological arguments are defeat able, and that they relate and match to scientific beliefs, but that does not take away the unconvincing details about the true meaning of a “necessary” or independent being; the reasons behind its creation (the universe) and why in human mind would be considered to be God. At this point of the cosmological arguments, it is hard to pick a side, to agree or disagree. In my personal case, I do not agree or disagree with the cosmological argument. It is very convincing to think that there is a superior being that created the entire universe, and all the elements with it. But leaving a Christian or cultural belief behind, who certifies that what they’re trying to say is the actual truth. I believe that just agreeing with the cosmological argument is equally absurd as just disagreeing with it. There are elements of both sides that complement each other, just as good complements evil, evil complements the good.

References

Tim Holt. Philosophy of Religion. 2008. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/ (accessed 11 10, 2012).
Tacelli, Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald. Peter Kreeft. 1994. Peter, Kreeft, and Tacelli Fr. Ronald. Dave Nevins, "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God." Last mohttp://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm (accessed November 10, 2012).
Keddie, John W. The Mountain Retreat, "The doctrine of Creation and its significance." Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/jkeddie.html
PHIL 270, "Notes for God matters." Accessed November 10, 2012. http://course1.winona.edu/eslowik/religionnotes.htm
Hughe Gerry J, "The Cosmological Argument Richmond Journal of Philosophy 9." The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (2005): 1-6, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KCsKexVCkR4J:www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp9_hughes.pdf&hl=es&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjT-MqKvXTeUeX5bKtdjGxZBChIJ52V4o0zwXhQ8dS-zHGMxr-3937FiX-x9kGtmty46BNrvym5QFGh7Sh18kQEBiLWyWQs9YwfMNasq_&sig=AHIEtbRTAEJFTaUudZup1UQ8rvmWucL51Q (accessed November 19, 2012.)
Chris , Hallquist. Internet Infidels, Inc, "Review of reasonable faith." Last modified 2007. Accessed November 11, 2012. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/chris_hallquist/faith.html

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Tim, Holt. Technokinetics, "Philosophy of Religion." Last modified 2008. Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/
[ 2 ]. Peter, Kreeft, and Tacelli Fr. Ronald. Dave Nevins, "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God." Last modified 1994. Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
[ 3 ]. Keddie, John W. The Mountain Retreat, "The doctrine of Creation and its significance." Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/jkeddie.html
[ 4 ]. Peter, Kreeft, and Tacelli Fr. Ronald. Dave Nevins, "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God." Last modified 1994. Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
[ 5 ]. Peter, Kreeft, and Tacelli Fr. Ronald. Dave Nevins, "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God." Last modified 1994. Accessed November 10, 2012. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
[ 6 ]. PHIL 270, "Notes for God matters." Accessed November 10, 2012. http://course1.winona.edu/eslowik/religionnotes.htm
[ 7 ]. Hughe Gerry J, "The Cosmological Argument Richmond Journal of Philosophy 9 ," The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (2005): 1-4, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KCsKexVCkR4J:www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp9_hughes.pdf &hl=es&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjT-4a927rJQOdxQDXYv47Quv68Osxjox-MqKvXTeUeX5bKtdjGxZBChIJ52V4o0zwXhQ8dS-zHGMxr-3937FiX-x9kGtmty46BNrvym5QFGh7Sh18kQEBiLWyWQs9YwfMNasq_&sig=AHIEtbRTAEJFTaUudZup1UQ8rvmWucL51Q (accessed November 19, 2012).
[ 8 ]. Chris , Hallquist. Internet Infidels, Inc, "Review of reasonable faith." Last modified 2007. Accessed November 11, 2012. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/chris_hallquist/faith.html