Cosmological Argument Reconsidered

(Originally written March 15, 2007 in Book 13)

An infinite cause has infinite causal power so if there are two such beings they would cancel each other out.

The Bible holds that God is the creator and sustainer of all things and that He is both one and supreme as well as infinite and eternal. The God of the Bible is identical to the God of the cosmological argument.

The Cosmological Argument Reconsidered

Major objection and responses

1. Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects.
response: premise 5

2. The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. (In this case: "uncaused cause")
response: "Uncaused" is a negative term meaning that the cause is not limited by anything. "Cause as used is an existential cause of everything.

3. There is no way to establish the principle of causality.
response: This argument is based on metaphysical necessity, not empirical observation so even if Hume's epistemological atomism were true it would not deter from this argument.

4. Theistic arguments convince a few, usually only those who like reasoning.
response: This argument is not purely abstract reasoning, rather it is an ontological insight, analysis and inference based on the concrete realities of the experience of finite beings.

5. An infinite series is possible.
response: (premise three) it is not possible. Existence cannot arise from non-existence. An actual infinite series of real finite beings is impossible.

6. The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument.
response: This argument begins with he premise, "something exists" and thus is not dependent on the ontological argument.

7. Existential statements are not logically necessary.
response: This is self-defeating as it is an existential statement.

8. What is rationally necessary is not ontologically necessary.
response: This argument holds what is existentially undeniable is true, not what is rationally inescapable is true. It is interested in real necessity, not rational necessity.

9. The Cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions.
response: The world was not created in time. Time is a created thing. Eternity is prior to time in a causal way, not a temporal way. Not everything needs a cause, only finite things need a cause.

10. The conclusion of the argument does not prove a theistic God.
response: It cannot be multiple Gods because there cannot be more than one unlimited being. It cannot be identical with the material universe because the universe is limited and the first Cause is unlimited. It cannot be the panentheistic God because God must be pure actuality and have no potentiality. It cannot be the God of pantheism because pantheism is contrary to our experience as real finite beings. If God is actuality it cannot change. The pantheistic God is everything. There is change. Thus either God is potentiality or not pantheistic. God is not potentiality. Thus, God is not pantheistic.

11. There is an equivocation on the word "cause" in the argument.
response: Cause means neither finite or infinite cause, but a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of something else.

12. The universe as a whole does not need a cause; only the parts do.
response: The sum of a all dependent beings does not make an independent being. The universe is a composed thing at potentiality and actuality (existence). Potentiality cannot actualize itself, thus actuality outside of the universe must actualize its potential.

13. The universe is mutually dependent and does not need a cause beyond it.
response: Mutual dependency is a vicious circle with at least one self-caused cause, which is absurd.

14. There is no need for a here-and-now cause of existence.
response: Whatever is causing something to exist in causing it to exist right now.

15. The actualization-potency or contingent-necessity are arbitrarily imposed on experience.
response: The model of dependency is not derived from isolated facts but from undeniable experience. "The existentially undeniable of experience of contingency is not an arbitrary model superimposed on experience" (206).

16. The cosmological argument commits some modal fallacies.
response: The existential cosmological argument holds that all things that do exist need a cause for their present existence, not all things that could not exist need a single cause to produce their existence. God is a necessary Being because ontologically he cannot not-be, not because the argument necessarily demonstrates his being.