Do cosmological arguments prove God’s existence?
Cosmological arguments are inductive, meaning they look at evidence from the existence of
the contingent earth to attempt to prove the basis for an origin. They argue there must be a
first cause, and God must be the one being who is not contingent on something else. There
are both cosmological arguments from contingency, which claim God as the one necessary
being that explains why everything must exist the way it does, as well as from causation,
which claim God as the one ultimate cause of the universe as everything has a cause. This
essay will argue that both these two forms of the cosmological argument fail in proving God’s
existence, due to their defending philosophers relying on false assumptions and unsteady
connections to their ideas of God.
Aquinas’ second way makes inferences that are not necessarily true. It is a cosmological
argument from atemporal causation, centering around the chain of causation - the world
sustaining itself in cause and effect. Aquinas argued through the necessary facts of the
universe, saying that there must be a first cause (God), since if there was not then there
would be no effects in the universe. He rejects the infinite regress of causes, but this is not
necessarily impossible. The line of causation does not need to be traced in many
interpretations of metaphysics. The universe may be itself eternal, existing for infinity. Some
may respond that infinity is a paradoxical concept. As time passes, the universe seemingly
ages with us, countering an infinite amount of time as an idea. However, this form of time
exists within our universe, as God does not. Also, perhaps our human understanding of
progression is too limited to grasp the nature of true infinite causation. Aquinas assumes any
counterintuitive nature to an infinite regress means it is false, and therefore rejecting this is
not sufficient proof for God’s existence.
When considering cosmological arguments from contingency’s flaws, Leibniz principle of
sufficient reason (PSR) is a clear example of Bertrand Russell’s claim of the fallacy of
composition. According to Leibniz, the universe’s existence (a contingent, truth of fact) could
only be sufficiently explained by God (a necessary, truth of reasoning), since every true fact
has a reason for its truth. He emphasises looking outside the sequence of contingency,
because these contingent truths as explanations also need their own sufficient reason. This
falls guilty to the same view of the universe that Aquinas adopted. Russell would label this
an invalid inference, saying “the universe is just there, and that’s all”. Leibniz uses analysis
within the universe to justify the universe itself, which may hold enough sufficient reason on
its own. It could be argued that denying the PSR in this way is denying the need for
explanation altogether, or that the universe being a brute fact is an unscientific claim, but
reality does not bend to our need for inquiry. Leibniz cannot use the PSR as law just
because of our desire for an explanation; therefore, this interpretation of the nature of the
universe’s facts is just that, and fails to prove either God’s existence, or the need to appeal
to necessary substances at all.
On the other hand, it is understandable to believe that contingent facts need something
necessary to depend on. In another of Aquinas’ arguments (his third way), the nature of
contingency is considered convincingly. Contingency implies a possibility of non-existence. If
there is no such thing as a necessary substance, then Aquinas puts forth the idea that at
some point nothing existed, and so, could never begin to exist. In this scenario, God being
the one necessary being to prevent an infinite regress of contingency is logical, but we must
notice his use of ‘possibility’. Whilst it is possible that nothing in a contingent universe ever
existed, that is hardly proof of actuality. There may be an infinite sequence of things existing
contingently where there was never a point where nothing existed. This would eliminate the
need for a necessary being that Aquinas assumed must be, just as he assumes contingency
means there must be a point of nothingness. Furthermore, the nature of God is called into
question. Even if a necessary being falls in logical assumption, the conclusion that this is a
theistic God is not. Instead there could be fundamental laws, or the eternal universe
mentioned previously to point to. Aquinas does construct proof for the implications of a
contingent universe, but fails to lead this on to proof for God’s existence.
Cosmological arguments lay important philosophical groundworks for ideas of the cause of
the universe, and the different forms of existence, yet overall do not prove the existence of
God. Whether using arguments from causation or contingency, it is impossible to ignore the
assumptions about metaphysics made which can be challenged in multiple ways. The
treatment of ideas presented, such as an infinite regress being openly rejected and the PSR
being applied universally, are closer to opinion than fact. Aquinas and Leibniz in particular
have ideas of God that are not inherently relevant to their arguments, and use these
personal ideas to weaken the cosmological argument overall.
