EXPLANATIONS OF THE COSMOS
As usual, Aristotle got here first. He divides explanations into 4 types:
|
But what about the "Big Bang Theory"?
It's important to understand that the "Big Bang Theory" is an efficient explanation for the universe. It claims that, about 14 billion years ago, the universe began expanding from a point known as a 'singularity' (it didn't "explode" - it expanded and it's still expanding). Even as an efficient explanation, this feels incomplete. What happened before the Big Bang? What's the efficient explanation for that? Scientists tell us that this is a meaningless question. If there's no efficient explanation of the Big Bang itself, many people look instead for a final explanation: what's the purpose behind this expanding universe? who or what intends it to be here? |
Excellent 6-minute animation.
Can you identify the material, formal and efficient explanations going on here? The beginning itself is considered at 4:20 - notice how the narrator explains that "natural laws stop making sense" - no material, formal or efficient explanations are possible. |
P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing.
P2 Nothing can move or change itself. P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover) C2 The Prime Mover is God. |
What's this infinite regress? Aristototle and Aquinas assume it's impossible for there to be an infinite chain of things changing other things. This premise might be false, in which case the argument is unsound.
You might also be wondering about the validity of this argument. Even if there is a First Mover, does it have to be God? |
P1 Everything in the world has a cause
P2 Nothing causes itself P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of causes C1 Therefore there has to be a First Cause to start it all C2 The First Cause is God. |
Once again, the 3rd Premise is the impossibility of infinite regress.
And there's another problem. Doesn't conclusion 1 (C1) contradict premise 2 (P2)? Doesn't that make the argument invalid? |
Professor Moriarty is like the First Cause of crime in the "Sherlock Holmes" stories. But he's not the first criminal who "set the ball rolling": he's the organiser, the one who continues to make it all happen
|
Remember this in Science classes? The magnet is like the First Cause because all the iron filings can trace the cause of their behaviour back to it's influence.
|
This is perhaps the deepest of Aquinas' arguments, because "contingency" seems to sum up what he was driving at in the other two arguments. It's the idea of "being part of something larger".
This version of the argument also includes time and history - because events in time are contingent upon earlier events. There would be no "now" if there wasn't a "previously". If you're going to give the example of a domino-chain, you should link it to THIS version of the argument. |
|
P1 Everything in the world is contingent (it can either exist or not)
P2 If things exist, there must be some time when they didn't exist C1 There must have been some time when NOTHING existed P3 Things exist now C2 There must be something that everything depends on for its existence - something that ensures everything else exists but is itself necessary (not contingent) C3 This Necessary Being is God. |
There's no infinite regress in this argument. It doesn't depend on that. Even if the universe is infinitely old, sooner or later a point will come where nothing exists - then nothing will ever exist after that.
But here we are! Nothingness has been "kept at bay". |
YES
|
NO
|
While the Design Argument has been weakened by scientific discoveries (like the Theory of Evolution), the Cosmological Arguments have been strengthened by science (notably the "Big Bang" Theory).
|
As a posteriori arguments, the Cosmological Arguments are in the same position as the Design Argument: they only offer inductive proofs and the probability that God exists. New scientific theories could weaken that probability.
|
|
|
The Design Argument looks at the structure and order in the world but that's open to interpretation. The Cosmological Arguments look at much more basic things: that the world is active and changing, that things have causes, that everything is contingent. These are undeniable, making cosmological arguments more sound because the premises are agreed.
|
The Cosmological Arguments share a weakness with the Design Argument in their invalid conclusions. Even if there is a cause or explanation for the universe, it doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. It doesn't have to be an intelligent being. All the arguments show is that there must be a cause or an explanation, not that this must be God.
|