Cosmological Argument from Contingency

[Kurieuo]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

[Kenny]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

My problem with the unmoved mover/cosmological argument, and all others similar is it imposes a set of rules on other arguments that it refuses to impose on their own.
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. But this argument proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, therefore it must exist outside it. Then it proclaims God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover, first cause, etc. etc.

Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which it will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!

These arguments will only work on those who presuppose the existence of God because they are the only ones who will allow you to apply rules to the opposing argument without applying them to your own

Ken
PS #1 says everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Does God have such an explanation also? If not, either #1 is wrong as written or God doesn’t exist.

[PaulSacramento]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

Premise 2 is the jump.
Why is the explanation of the universe existence God ?

[RickD]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

Premise 2 is the jump.
Why is the explanation of the universe existence God ?

I agree with Paul. You'd need to prove #2.

[Kurieuo]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

Premise 2 is the jump.
Why is the explanation of the universe existence God ?

I agree with Paul. You'd need to prove #2.

This argument was one I found on Craig's Reasonable Faith site.
He called it air-tight, but presented as-is, I don't think it is.
But... I feel the way it's presented might be purposeful.

@PaulS, what else would you propose? Multiverse?
I'd agree with Kenny in an exchange I had with him elsewhere.
Universe it is really intended to mean everything that there is.
We may realise our universe is a lot bigger one day -- multiple "verses" but ultimately it's all the one.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, does that mean you think it obvious that the "universe" needs an explanation?
(since your focus is upon God being the cause)

@RickD, what I said to PaulS.

@Kenny, my response to you would likely be longer.
I'll respond tomorrow when not so late here.

[PaulSacramento]

@PaulS, what else would you propose? Multiverse?
I'd agree with Kenny in an exchange I had with him elsewhere.
Universe it is really intended to mean everything that there is.
We may realise our universe is a lot bigger one day -- multiple "verses" but ultimately it's all the one.

Doesn't matter what I propose, YOU are the one that made the statement it falls on YOU to prove it.

Premise 2 is that :

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

You need to quantify WHY the explanation is God and not something else.

Now, it it were worded like this, it would be different:
If the universe has an explanation of it's existence and it's existence can only be explained by something that is outside of the universe and is eternal, then that explanation can be God.

[Kurieuo]

@PaulS, it's an argument up for discussion.
If it were me, then I would have stated things differently.

BUT, I'm more interested in how Atheists respond to this argument.
I do believe God is the logical answer and easy to arrive at.

What I think needs highlighting to those on the opposite side of us isn't necessarily proving that God created.
RATHER, it's showing that the universe is contingent and can't be eternal itself. Note Kenny's response:

Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover...

You're Theist, as is Rick, as am I. So critically thinking we may focus in on the "God" element: "Oh, there's a gap -- God can't be shoved in so quickly."
But, it doesn't take much guessing... or thinking... there's not too many other options really if not universe/multiverse/call-it-what-you-will.

Non-Theists like Kenny get this much, I think.
Which is why they focus upon why the universe can't exist of necessity within itself.
There's a concession in that. If the universe isn't the be-all and end-all, then God is the most intuitive answer.

Notice that the argument never states "the universe has an explanation of its existence"? It's missing this premise. It can't be air-tight without it.
I think Craig did that purposefully. For Atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact.
This is the common response Atheists put forward whenever Theists point to the contingency of the universe through the Kalam or Thomistic arguments.
It's what I keep hitting up against with Kenny, Audie and many Atheists before them.

If Atheism is true, the universe has no reason for its existence.
Which is logically equivalent to saying, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then Atheism is not true i.e., God exists.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Paul wrote:

Premise 2 is the jump.
Why is the explanation of the universe existence God ?

You need to quantify WHY the explanation is God and not something else

So, is it out of line to see this as one of two posibilities.. either the universe was created by intelligence with the capilities to fine tune it as it is to have made it 14.7 billion years to it's advancement in the present,

or

Is the universe created by chaos, created by nothing, with nothing and left to evolve to the same fine tuning presently exemplified without intelligent cohesion to it's current advancement.

Everything, as we know it had a begining, from a single universe to a rock... a rock cannot say, before it was a rock, I wish to be a rock... and have it come to fruition. A rock before it was a rock was nothing, and nothing cannot make requests of itself or anything else. A request to become something from nothing needs power... a source of design deriving from an intelligent source that has the power to create out of nothing.

God

[PaulSacramento]

Paul wrote:

Premise 2 is the jump.
Why is the explanation of the universe existence God ?

You need to quantify WHY the explanation is God and not something else

So, is it out of line to see this as one of two posibilities.. either the universe was created by intelligence with the capilities to fine tune it as it is to have made it 14.7 billion years to it's advancement in the present,

or

Is the universe created by chaos, created by nothing, with nothing and left to evolve to the same fine tuning presently exemplified without intelligent cohesion to it's current advancement.

Everything, as we know it had a begining, from a single universe to a rock... a rock cannot say, before it was a rock, I wish to be a rock... and have it come to fruition. A rock before it was a rock was nothing, and nothing cannot make requests of itself or anything else. A request to become something from nothing needs power... a source of design deriving from an intelligent source that has the power to create out of nothing.

God

Everything THAT COMES INTO BEING. has a beginning.
It is important to qualify it this way.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Everything THAT COMES INTO BEING. has a beginning.

as opposed to Everything CREATED has a beginning ? substitute where applicable, but why the important difference ?

[PaulSacramento]

Everything THAT COMES INTO BEING. has a beginning.

as opposed to Everything CREATED has a beginning ? substitute where applicable, but why the important difference ?

Well, for one thing when using created you have to quantify what that means ( created as in an Act of God or created as in give birth for example).
The difference is important for various reasons, the most popular being that if EVERYTHING has a beginning then God had a beginning.

We need to be very specific ( Ala Aquinas) when arguing from certain point.

Aquinas, for example, did not know if the universe had a beginning or always existed, so He formulated the view base don what he did know and everyone knew, that all things that COME INTO BEING/EXISTENCE, do so by virtue of some action/move that cause them to come into existence, but God, who has always existed, never came into being so there was no need to anything to cause Him to be because that would make that thing, God.

Point being that the argument is about what we know and can prove, that all things that come into being, due so by action of something else.

Science has discovered that the universe is expanding, which means that at one point it was far smaller and that SOMETHING cause it to expand ( causing the big bang).
We don't know if the universe NEVER WAS, simply that it was far smaller than it is now and then, BANG ! it started expanding and continues to do so.

[Kurieuo]

PS #1 says everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Does God have such an explanation also? If not, either #1 is wrong as written or God doesn’t exist.

Reconsider premise (1):

(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

This seems straight forward -- either something has always existed according to its own nature, or it is contingent upon something other.
Note, the argument never says that the universe has an explanation of its own existence. Rather premise (2) says:

(2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

It could be the case that the universe is the non-contingent thing that exists "in the necessity of its own nature."

Not until (4) do we see it assumed that the universe has an explanation of its own existence. Right?
But, you can't get this from 1 & 3 as the argument says. So you're right that something is up with the argument as stated.

SO then, it seems that you accept (1) and (2). You just reject that it is the case that the universe has a cause for its existence:

Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover...

In other words you are saying that the Universe exists "in the necessity of its own nature."
Like what we Christians attribute to God. Because, geezus, something has to have existed in its own nature or else nothing else would.
You therefore actually agree with premise (1) and even concede premise (2) as stated with an "If".

Premise (1) is plainly obvious even to my 7 year old.
She laughed when I said to her "You know, nothing once existed." Responding, "then where did everything come from?"
Even she gets something has to have always existed. If a 7 year old gets it, then I don't believe it is out of reach of adults to understand premise (1).
So if adults don't get this (i.e., Dawkins ), then they're being purposefully ignorant or stupid.
Thankfully, you do seem to get this which is why you're reluctant to let go of "the Universe as the unmoved mover."

You therefore agree largely with the argument as a whole, if and only if the unstated and assumed premise that the universe has a cause for its existence can be proved. Right? I'd agree that the argument overshoots on that front. That is, it isn't immediately obvious to all that the universe does need a cause.

[Jac3510]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

This is airtight. It would be easy for someone to misunderstand it in failing to understand the terms, but that doesn't mean it isn't airtight.

The first premise does not need to be proven. It is a self-evident fact, and to deny it is to propose that something can come from nothing, which is self-contradictory and absurd.
The second premise does not need to be proven. We could follow Aquinas' language, I suppose, and restate it something like this:

• If the universe has an explanation of its existence, it is what everyone means when they say "God"

This, again, is self-evidently true. I guarantee you that Rick and Paul, when they say "God," have in mind "the Creator of the Universe." They may disagree with some attributes about God, but everyone who holds to God's existence hold to that idea: God is the Cause of the Universe.

The rest of this is just necessary deduction. There's nothing controversial. It's a simple argument and is completely irrefutable. The only line of attack open to the atheist is to say that Christians have loaded the word "God" with too many attributes without warrant. And that's fine. But that's where you just have further distinct arguments. For instance, the atheist may say that a multiverse could be the cause of the universe and that would make the multiverse God. But the problem there is that the multiverse itself must therefore exist and therefore have a cause of its existence. The question is, is the cause of the multiverse's existence of itself or not? It is easy to show (via contingency) that the multiverse is not necessary--it is contingent--and therefore the multiverse itself needs a cause.

Bottom line: what this argument actually shows is that there exists a cause of the universe that has itself as its explanation for its own existence. And this, of course, we rightly call God.

[Kurieuo]

There are different ways of putting the argument from contingency. Here is one version of it:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Would be interested in a discussion with any takers who would oppose it.

This is airtight. It would be easy for someone to misunderstand it in failing to understand the terms, but that doesn't mean it isn't airtight.

The first premise does not need to be proven. It is a self-evident fact, and to deny it is to propose that something can come from nothing, which is self-contradictory and absurd.
The second premise does not need to be proven. We could follow Aquinas' language, I suppose, and restate it something like this:

• If the universe has an explanation of its existence, it is what everyone means when they say "God"

This, again, is self-evidently true. I guarantee you that Rick and Paul, when they say "God," have in mind "the Creator of the Universe." They may disagree with some attributes about God, but everyone who holds to God's existence hold to that idea: God is the Cause of the Universe.

The rest of this is just necessary deduction. There's nothing controversial. It's a simple argument and is completely irrefutable. The only line of attack open to the atheist is to say that Christians have loaded the word "God" with too many attributes without warrant. And that's fine. But that's where you just have further distinct arguments. For instance, the atheist may say that a multiverse could be the cause of the universe and that would make the multiverse God. But the problem there is that the multiverse itself must therefore exist and therefore have a cause of its existence. The question is, is the cause of the multiverse's existence of itself or not? It is easy to show (via contingency) that the multiverse is not necessary--it is contingent--and therefore the multiverse itself needs a cause.

Bottom line: what this argument actually shows is that there exists a cause of the universe that has itself as its explanation for its own existence. And this, of course, we rightly call God.

It seems to be missing the premise: "the universe has an explanation of its existence" and some reasoning for that.
Until that point is proven, then (4) seems like a leap in logic.

I'm not saying that such further justifications don't exist,
but rather the argument as it stands just doesn't seem air-tight to me.

[Jac3510]

I think the missing premise, K, is covered in the qualifier for (1). EVERYTHING that exists (and that would include God), has an explanation for its existence. Qualifier: that explanation is either internal to it or external to it. I don't know that you would need to explicitly state that the explanation of the universe would be external to it. That's so obvious it can be assumed. All the multiverse theories are built on recognition of that fact.

So what would you call an explanation of the universe that is external to it? That is what we all call God. Let the atheist argue that the cause is not God. They're challenging premise 2, fine. But that doesn't mean it's missing a premise any more than the KCA is missing a premise when it says, "The universe came into existence." Sure, that needs to be defended. You can do it on scientific grounds. You can (try) to do it on philosophical grounds. But the premise itself is fine as stated. There's no leap. And just so here. That's why I suggested the rephrasing I did, but it's not necessary.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable writing out a formal defense of 2, including 2a, 2b, 2c, and so on. Again, that's fine. But it also doesn't strike me as THAT necessary. Once you understand what the terms mean ("God," "its own nature," "external cause,": etc.) it becomes rather self-evident.