So here is the first argument: the Cosmological Argument or the Uncaused Cause Argument.
The Classic way to form the Cosmological argument:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
The Kalam Cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Some of the earliest forms of this argument were made by Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece. Thomas Aquinas used this argument, although he formulated it a little differently, in his Quinquae Viae a.k.a Five Ways (in his Prime Mover and First Cause arguments). Now, what I like about this argument is that it is an a posteriori argument, meaning it is an argument which is based in part on experience. Also, it is an easy argument to understand, especially the Kalam version. This argument is used most frequently by William Lane Craig. I really like how he uses it.
Let's talk about the first premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. We know that it would be rather silly and quite impossible for an ice cream truck to just pop into existence in my living room (or any atoms for that matter). Things just don't pop into existence on their own accord. If they begin to exist, there MUST be a cause--something to bring them into existence. This is fairly intuitive and not so controversial.
On to the second premise: The Universe began to exist. This is where most people find problems with the Kalam Cosmological argument. So, there must be additional arguments to support this premise. the first argument is akin to the third premise of the older cosmological argument (A causal chain cannot be of infinite length) and is stated as:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist. -Don't let me lose you here, let me define what an actual infinite is. William Lane Craig gives this example of what an actual infinite is and how it cannot exist. Imagine a bookcase with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of green books (obviously they are equal in number). Now suppose you take away all of the green books. What are you left with? An infinite number of red books. So, infinity divided by two is still infinity. So, therefore, because the universe could not have existed for an actual infinite amount of time, it must begun at some finite time in the past.
So the supporting argument is thus:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
Now, it must be said that God does not fit into the category of an "actual infinte." Actual infintes are WITHIN time, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16). God is 'outside' of time (an interesting article, although it may be borning to some of you, on this: Eternal God: A Study of God without Time by William Lane Craig). This idea was formalized by Augustine of Hippo but can be plainly seen in Scripture:
"Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:2
"Even from eternity I am He..." Isaiah 43:3
"who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him {be} honor and eternal dominion! Amen." 1 Timothy 6:16
"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last." Isa 48:12
And finally the third premise: Therefore the Universe had a cause. If the first two premises are true, then this conclusion necessarily follows. This is where one would introduce the idea that God is this "Uncaused Cause" for the Universe. Obviously this doesn't "prove" God's existence, rather it points to it. There is no one argument that "proves" God. Even if it convinces some that there is a God, it doesn't prove the Christian God or even that this Divine being can be known. I would say that at the least, this argument does provide evidence that there is an "eternal something" but more likely it is a Someone, for why would an impersonal entity create a universe that has the potential of personality?
That's all for now...please leave some comments so I know what you all are thinking! Love you all. May the Grace and Peace of our Lord be with you.
good website to check out:
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument
No comments:
Post a Comment