Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The following Cosmological Argument is excerpted from my draft book (see Preview at religiouspluralism.ca). If something exists, then something must exist necessarily. Some things do exist; therefore, there must be a necessary being, which either begins the series of contingent beings, or is somehow a self-sustaining totality of all beings that is the cause of itself.

Perhaps there is a Causal Loop, in which case the beginning is also the ending, and the universe may be periodically creating itself. Causal loops are impossible if time is a linear sequence of cause and effect stretching eternally into the past, and infinitely into the future. However, a loop may be possible if time has a beginning from nothing at some point in the past, and an ending in “nothing” at some point in the future. Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing the Deity is originally an existential potential, but his Universe becomes eventually an experiential actual).

Based on observations of the expanding universe and other evidence, the Big Bang theory suggests that about 14 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence out of an infinitesimal singularity, and this constitutes the beginning of the universe, i.e. matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws out of nothing. Now, if entropy eventually reduces the universe to “undifferentiated sameness, which is indistinguishable from nothingness” (Eddington), then the destiny of the universe may be virtually the same as its beginning.

Therefore, from the universe point of view, the explanation of reality may be a causal loop which creates itself periodically as some sort of systematic unity or “gestalt” of energy and consciousness. Then, we may speculate that the pinnacle of this “creation” would amount to a Universe Allsoul or Supreme Being, who is God (or a personification of God).

Then, either there is a First Cause, which is God transcendent; or else the universe is eternally recreating itself, which is God immanent. God may be either the one or the other, or some combination of both. Alternatively, all three explanations may be true in different respects. If it is all three, then to preserve systematic unity, each of them must be an expression of One God manifest in three dimensions or personae: God the prime creator, God the supreme being, and God the ultimate unconditioned (limitless) source/destiny of all that is.

If this Trinity is the necessary and sufficient cause of itself, then this threefold expression of divinity must be inseparably united, with the three personae existing all at once and simultaneously, in order to complete the circle of creation out of nothing but the idea of each other, and reason itself.

It has been said that “nothing comes from nothing,” but the three persons of the Trinity apparently solve this metaphysical problem by sharing the Absolute in a united construct of mutual support, i.e. the Deity Absolute, the Universe Absolute Supreme Being, and the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of Consummation.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

2

You mean if an object A exists than an object A must exist necessarily f.e.? Sure, though I find that necessarily redundant. Not sure how you got to the necessary being, seems like a non sequitur to me. I mean, I’m a necessary being too in a way that I exist and therefore I exist necessarily, right? Doesn’t make me a god.

I think that’s most likely the case and the closest to what science seems to tell us so far, I’m not sure how you got to a god however, as there doesn’t seem to be a logical connection drawn and God is once again made redundant. Also, according to Occam’s razor, the universe AND god are less probable than universe alone as they’re harder to explain.

Wow, I think you have some major problems with causality there. First, you have to have 1) something doing the causing, the affector. Then you must have 2) something being influenced, that which the affector is acting upon, the affected. And you have 3) the result of their interaction. What you’re proposing is, if I understood it correctly, is that Trinity is acting upon Trinity and their interaction results in… Trinity?

And, as far as I know, creation out of nothing is impossible because you’re basically proposing that the affected, 2) is nothing. Nothing is being causally influenced, in other words, God isn’t causally influencing anything, aka God didn’t cause anything. And I don’t see how “sharing the Absolute in a united construct of mutual support” has anything to do with that, or anything else concerning the cosmological argument.

3

3Sum… Thanks for your usual pertinent and incisive criticism. I’ve rewritten and rearranged my argument in an attempt to address some of the deficiencies in my first effort, so can we start again please?

No less a critic than Immanuel Kant said that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if something exists, then something exists necessarily. In other words, not all things can be contingent, but there must be some necessary being.

Then, either there is a First Cause, which is God transcendent; or else the universe is eternally recreating itself, which is God immanent. God may be either the one or the other, or some combination of both. If it is a combination, then all three explanations may be true in different respects. To preserve systematic unity, each explanatory factor might be an expression of One God manifest in three dimensions or personae: God the prime creator, God the supreme being, and God the ultimate unconditioned (limitless) source/destiny of all that is.

If this Trinity is the necessary and sufficient cause of itself, then this threefold expression of divinity must be inseparably united, with the three personae existing all at once and simultaneously, in order to complete the circle of creation out of nothing but the idea of each other, and reason itself.

Thus there may be a Causal Loop, in which case the beginning is also the ending, and the universe may be periodically creating itself. Causal loops are impossible if time is a linear sequence of cause and effect stretching eternally into the past, and infinitely into the future. However, a loop may be possible if time has a beginning from nothing at some point in the past, and an ending in “nothing” at some point in the future. Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) - the Deity is originally an existential potential and his Universe becomes eventually an experiential actual.

Based on observations of the expanding universe and other evidence, the Big Bang theory suggests that about 14 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence out of an infinitesimal singularity, and this constitutes the beginning of the universe, i.e. matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws out of nothing. Now, if entropy eventually reduces the universe to “undifferentiated sameness, which is indistinguishable from nothingness” (Eddington), then the destiny of the universe may be virtually the same as its beginning.

Therefore, from the universe point of view, the explanation of reality may be a causal loop which creates itself periodically as some sort of systematic unity or “gestalt” of energy and consciousness, with the pinnacle of this “creation” amounting to a Universe Allsoul or Supreme Being, who is God (or a personification of God).

It has been said that “nothing comes from nothing,” but the three persons of the Trinity apparently solve this metaphysical problem by sharing the Absolute in a united construct of mutual support, depending only on the notion of each other and the ‘force’ of pure and practical reason. In abstract terms, these three absolutes of creation may be called the Deity Absolute, the Universe Absolute Supreme Being, and the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of Consummation.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
religiouspluralism.ca

4

If you are proposing that there was a time when there was no universe, you are necessarily incorrect. If a potential is not actualizing, it hasn’t yet the potential to act. If it gains the potential to act, time (the measure of change) has already begun, thus there can be no beginning. The notion of a “beginning of time” is an oxymoron.

The speculation of a infinitesimal singularity is necessarily incorrect. Energy can only compress so far. If the known universe is indeed expanding from a central location, then the collision of extra large black-holes would be the only reasonable cause.

The speculation that there can be a universe with only one isolated, floating-in-empty-space object is necessarily incorrect. There can never be such a thing as a truly empty space of any size, although there can be a space void of discernible objects or substance. The substance must necessarily exist in all spaces, merely indiscernible at times (“Affectance”).

The “First Cause” refers to the most fundamental cause, “Prime Cause”, not the first in time.

My version;