For one of my cosmology course assignments I had to pick either the ontological or a version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God, discuss what I think is its weakest point, and attempt to strengthen it. I then presented a version of my answer as part of a seminar, together with a partner who answered a different but ultmimately related question related to cosmology and religion.
A version of my answer is below.
The Kalam cosmological argument
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This argument was revitalized by William Lane Craig, whose lecture below we saw as part of the material:
The above interpretation of the argument is what I focus on here.
An uncaused cause
The argument hinges on the idea that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, so we must have a first uncaused cause. Because it created time and space, it must be timeless and immaterial.
“…the cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial being…”
- William Lane Craig
AKA, God.
The universe as its own creator
Maybe whatever we observe within the bounds of our existing universe could be said to require a cause, but it isn’t obvious to me that the universe’s existence itself must have begun with a cause.
Could the universe itself have been the first cause of its current properties (time, space, etc?)
To illustrate, I will give some examples from within our universe of entities whose properties can inherently change from a single origin. Note that these are crude comparisons that don’t make a claim about why the these properties change. Of course any example from within our universe will have a cause because that is one of the properties the universe would have adopted upon its own transformation. So these examples only intend to illustrate the concept of complete transformation of a single entity, not the causality/uncausality aspect.
Examples
- A lump of clay can make a statue. The entity of clay persists, with the additional properties that entail being a totally separate entity - the statue.
- Through metamorphosis, an adult butterfly emerges from its chrysalis with fully developed wings and reproductive organs.
Note that these examples are different. The first example is of an entity that holds two identities at once through its modification of properties. The second is of an entity that transforms completely from Thing A to Thing B, from a single origin.
Universe as self-shaping ‘clay’?
Could the universe have shaped itself from a sort of base ‘clay’ that did not need a cause, and then adopted properties which from then on do have a cause? Did it grow ‘limbs’ of time, space, matter, causality…?
Supporting God
If we allow for this, we could say even this possible origin supports the existence of God, because it simply means God exists in the form of the universe - they become indistinguishable.
- Pantheism: all is god (clay + statue)
- Pandeism: god transformed itself into the universe (chrysalis -> butterfly)
However, we then let go of the notion of a traditional Biblical God. These are incompatible with Craig’s popularized interpretation of the argument.
The relevance of God
Does the word “God” hold any practical meaning if it is simply a label attributed to our entire world?