What is the cosmological argument trying to prove?

Answer 1

Short answer: No.

It alleges that there is a problem that "anything that exists must have a cause, the universe exists, and therefore then universe must have a cause." and replaces it with a bigger problem: By saying that God is the first cause you are saying that God exists and therefore the argument applies to God and God must have a cause. This would then become infinite as whatever caused God must have a cause and whatever caused that must have a cause and so on.

The other big problem is that the argument doesn't even say that the first cause had to be God, it just says there had to be a first cause... That first cause could have been natural.

Answer:

The above answer hints at something which atheist (and indeed theist) philosophers widely regard as false. If God is used as an explanation for the universe, then we do not need to apply arguments of cause to God. This is a mistake that many prominent atheists (notably Richard Dawkins) make when they say "God doesn't explain anything, because you can just ask who made God?"

A counterexample for the idea that explanations must be explainable is subatomic particles. We said there are protons and neutrons and electrons because they explained the behaviour of atoms, even though it turned the small question "why are atoms like that?" into a much bigger question "why are electrons and protons and neutrons like that?"

The reason why the cosmological argument is largely dismissed by philosophers is that it relies on a number of difficult assumptions (A-model of time, laws within the universe to apply to the universe as a whole, rigidity of logic outside of the universe, etc.) is highly speculative (we have no real evidence to push us either way) and any conclusion one way or the other would actually be meaningless. If we conclude that there does have to be a first cause, then what was it? It could be a scientific anomaly, a cosmic accident, any of the deities worshipped by the millions of religions throughout history, or one that none of them managed to find.

Answer 2

It doesn't. However, it comes very close. Nothing 'proves' the existence or non-existence of God - it's a matter of faith - but the cosmological argument is evidence for design within the universe. As an example, at the Big Bang (or 'Creation' - call it what you like) the universal constants were put into place to enable the universe to exist. These constants include Planck's constant, the mass of a proton, the mass to charge ratio of an electron, the Boltzman Constant, the Gravitational Constant and so on. In fact hundreds of constants were formed in the first microseconds after the singularity of the Big Bang. Let's take the Gravtational Constant G as just one example. it's value is approximately 6 time ten to the power of minus 11 (ie 0.00000000006) confirming that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. However, if this value was any larger - even by a miniscule amount - then stars would form with extra vigour so that they became white dwarfs rather than yellow dwarfs like our sun. They would be hot enough for life, yes, but they would burn out long before life could evolve in any solar system round them. Similarly, if G was smaller, then stars would become red giants and would be too cool to form life over periods of time necessary for evolution. And the difference between these two limits is minutely small - and yet our universe has hit the nail on the head providing the value of G that is perfect for the formation of life. Whilst this may be a coincidence, when you do the same exercise with the other constants all of which turn out just right, with any slight deviation scuppering any possible life formation, coincidence looks very unlikely with design seeming more likely. The theory of 'multiverses' - an infinite number of universes where this one just happens to be life-supporting - is very speculative as it is based on speculation. As the existence of multiverses cannot be proved or even verified by experiment then the existence of these universes cannot be proved scientifically. Another aspect of cosmology is Einstein's special theory of relativity where he states that not only space but time as well was created at the Big Bang. This beginning to time explains a lot about God. The Bible tells us that God is eternal - which does not mean 'always having existed, existing now and always will exist'. It actually means 'existence outside time'. So God exists outside the constraints of time. This is not as far-fetched as you might think. Light itself is eternal. As one approaches the speed of light Einstein showed that time slows (the 'time dilation effect') so that at the speed of light time stops. So light exists 'outside' of time as does God. (wasn't it very apt that Jesus said 'I am the Light of the world?). So his eternality of God explains a great deal of things. As just three examples it explains: * Prayer. As God is eternal, he is not constrained by time when answering prayer explaining why he can answer millions of prayers simultaneously. No piling up of an in-tray for God. * God's omnipresence both in space and time, and his ability to see the 'whole picture' as he spoke through his prophets of what was to come. * Miracles. If God is not constrained by the laws of cause and ffect (where effect always has to follow the cause, as both these concepts are constrained by time) miracles are perfectly possible as cause and effect are irrelevant. So here are just two aspects where cosmology has helped support the existence of God. However there are many more - too may to mention here.

Answer 3

There are two:

The first is that the universe in general and planet earth in particular are so precisely set up to allow life to exist that they must have been designed in that way. Claims that such things as the strong and weak nuclear forces, the strength of gravity and the rate of expansion of the universe, along with the length of year, tilt of the earth and distance from the sun. could not vary more than a very small amount, otherwise life as we know it could not exist, appear to be true. The counter argument is that there may be many universes in which these things vary greatly and in which life does not exist, so naturally the one in which life does exist appears to be designed for life. This is sometimes sumarised as "isn't it amazing how exactly a puddle of water fits the depression in the ground". The weakness of the counter argument is that there is no evidence for these other universes.

The second is that planet earth appears to be set up in such a way that its inhabitants can observe and measure the universe: the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, the size of both sun and moon, the fact that our eyes can perceive the relevant wave lengths of light, and so on. This enables us to observe the universe and thus realise the majesty of its Designer.

Neither argument is compelling, but both will strengthen the faith of someone who already is disposed to believe in God.

Answer 4

The teleological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by showing that the marvels of nature could only have been created by a higher being for that intended end purpose. It was first formulated by Aquinas, but the most famous exposition of it was was William Paley. He compared the intricacies of the human eye with a watch, and said that there clearly was a Designer. Numerous other analogies have since been put forward, such as the probability of a Boeing aeroplane being put together without a Designer. If the teleological argument makes its case, the God it would prove the existence of is not necesarily the Judeo-Christian God, nor for example the Hindu Brahma, but an unknown Mind and Power.

In the end, the teleological argument does not make its case and is unable to prove the existence of God. It was fatally weakened by the discovery of evolution. When it was shown that simpler forms of the eye exist in nature and that evolution from the simplest to the most complex is both feasible and credible, the focus of those who support Intelligent Design moved to the bacterium flagella. However, scientists have since shown how the flagella would have evolved.

William H. Halverson (A Concise Introduction to Philosophy) says that those who find the teleological argument impressive are not usually convinced by the argument as such. They respond to it because of a sense of wonder about the universe around us.

Answer 5

According to the religious viewpoint, and the view of a number of non-religious people as well, the answer is yes. The intricacy of living things is vastly too complex to ascribe to random processes. The DNA resists and seeks to repair change or mutation; and there are unbridgeable gaps between certain species and other (supposedly related) ones. Today (unlike in Darwin's time) it is known that a single cell, with all its purposeful molecules, enzymes and organelles, is more intricate than an entire town with all its wiring, Plumbing, brickwork, etc.

See also:

More on Evolution and Creation