Is the existence of God necessary, or more precisely, is there a need for the existence of a necessary being? Theists have presented numerous philosophical and scientific arguments in favor of a positive response to this question. However, atheists employ various evidence and techniques to challenge or rebut these arguments. In a series of posts, I will aim to assess prevalent arguments and the most frequently encountered counterarguments against them. If we discover that a necessary being, which we will treat as synonymous with God, is indispensable to avoid logical inconsistencies when explaining the origin of the universe, we then conclude that this being must be logically necessary. In other words, if there is solid logical reasoning supporting the necessity of a being like God, we assert that God exists. The answer to this question alone will significantly shape our perspective of not only history but all aspects of reality.
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument is a philosophical and theological argument that seeks to demonstrate the existence of a first cause or uncaused cause of the universe. It is one of the classical arguments for the existence of God and has been discussed by various philosophers and theologians throughout history.
Kalam Argument
One of the most widely recognized cosmological arguments is presented in the form of the Kalam Argument. Originating in the Islamic philosophical tradition, it has gained increased popularity through the work of philosopher William Lane Craig. In essence, the argument can be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause
The cause of the universe can be meaningfully described as God. Therefore, God exists. Valid arguments maintain a correct logical form, irrespective of the truth of their premises. The Kalam argument is commonly acknowledged within this category, a point generally undisputed by its critics. However, the question remains: Are the premises indeed true?
The First Premise
The first premise, that everything that has a beginning has a cause, is intuitive and is accepted by most people. Nevertheless, some raise objections, often citing scientific findings such as the apparent randomness observed in quantum physics. However, this objection is somewhat tenuous. In quantum mechanics, the precise outcome of a measurement is often unpredictable, sparking debates on causality. The apparent randomness in quantum phenomena has led some researchers to advocate for true and absolute randomness in the behavior of subatomic particles. Nevertheless, this viewpoint is nowhere near universally accepted. Albert Einstein, uneasy with the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics, conveyed his stance on the matter with the phrase “God does not play dice with the universe,” emphasizing his skepticism toward the idea of true randomness in quantum mechanics.
Jimmy Akin has argued that “true randomness does not exist in the behavior of subatomic particles. Apparent randomness is just unexplained complexity. Left to itself, all physical matter and energy behaves deterministically.”1 I align with Akin’s perspective here. True randomness implies a lack of any underlying cause or determinism, which can be challenging to reconcile with the principles of causality and predictability that are foundational in all other scientific fields. It is plausible that our understanding of the behavior of quantum mechanics might be incomplete, hindering our ability to make accurate predictions. Consequently, assuming true randomness is unwarranted, as both philosophy and science recognize the lack of a definitive answer to this concept. In light of these considerations, objections to the initial premise, particularly those rooted in scientific perspectives, may themselves be contentious and possibly flawed. Consequently, I find merit in affirming the validity of premise one.
The Second Premise and Conclusion
The second premise—that the universe has a beginning—may not be so intuitive. Various philosophical and scientific arguments have been put forth to establish that the universe must have a finite history. Historically, this premise had to be defended on purely philosophical grounds as modern science had not yet been developed. Prominent Catholic philosophers in history have adopted varying stances on this matter. St. Bonaventure found the argument compelling, whereas his contemporary St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed.2 When relying solely on philosophical reasoning for this premise, I am inclined to agree with St. Thomas Aquinas. However in the 20th century, the Big Bang was discovered, and current cosmology is consistent with the idea of the universe having a beginning. As Stephen Hawking, widely acknowledged as one of the most distinguished physicists in history, emphatically stated in 1996: “All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”3 So, if one were to rely on modern scientific discovery as the basis for their reasoning for this premise, the premise would be valid.
Now we have reached the conclusion—that the universe has a cause. We find a properly qualified version of the Kalam argument, based on modern science, can be used to prove the existence of God. If one wishes to adhere to what modern science considers as scientific fact (that the universe had a beginning) this argument works as intended. When viewed through the lens of embracing the consensus of modern science, the argument stands as both sound and logically valid.
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, named after the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, is a philosophical and theological argument for the existence of God. Rooted in principles of causation and contingency, this argument is particularly compelling in light of modern scientific insights. Leibnizian also does an excellent job of getting to the core of what the theist is arguing for—the existence of a necessary being. It is structured as follows.
Premise 1: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.
Premise 2: The universe has an explanation for existence and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3).
Premise 5: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and 4)
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists
The First Premise
Premise 1: “Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.” This assertion aligns with Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason4, also known as the PSR, positing that everything in existence must have a reason or cause. This premise closely resembles the first premise in the Kalam argument above. However, I would like to emphasize again: if we accept the idea that things can come into existence without any reason or explanation, we introduce a profound anomaly that challenges our understanding of the entire physical universe. If we were to deny the PSR, we undermine the very notion of science. Not only is this premise verified by our experience and basic reasoning skills, but logically, the PSR is sound. Consequently, refuting this premise implies an error in the fundamental principle of science, making the premise sound.
The Second Premise
This premise contends that the universe has an explanation for existence and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being. Some will argue that the universe is inherently necessary and self-explanatory, a viewpoint upheld by many atheists over the centuries. To assess this claim, we must explore the idea that the universe itself is necessary. If the universe is inherently necessary, it nullifies Leibniz’s argument. However, if the universe lacks inherent necessity, the initial part of this premise—that the universe has an explanation for its existence—logically holds. As Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy points out, for the universe to be necessary, it must be eternal and unchanging5, adhering to the principles of everlasting existence and unalterable characteristics.
Our exploration of these necessary parameters can be guided by an examination of modern scientific discoveries. In 1965, evidence validating the occurrence of the Big Bang surfaced with the identification of cosmic microwave background radiation—a phenomenon predicted by physicists as the thermal radiation lingering from the event. Originating as speculative notions from Catholic priest Georges Lemaître in the 1920s, these ideas were now supported by concrete evidence conclusively affirming the finite nature of the universe. Despite the discovery, numerous attempts at eternal universe models (Steady State Model, Eternal Inflation Model, Oscillating Model, Ekpyrotic Model) followed, all ultimately unsuccessful. Finally, in 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem was introduced, decisively demonstrating that any expanding universe cannot have a past that extends infinitely. Alexander Vilenkin, a key contributor to the BGV Theorem, famously remarked, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”6 Unless we are willing to disregard what is now considered scientific fact, the conclusion is inevitable: the universe is not eternal and, therefore, not necessary in itself.
Up to this point, we have established the validity of the first segment of Premise 2, asserting that the universe possesses an explanation for its existence. Now, attention turns to the second part—whether this explanation is rooted in a necessary being. Philosophical perspectives such as Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy7 and other materialistic viewpoints propose that the universe originates from a necessary existing substance rather than a necessary being. A necessary substance sidesteps the logical challenge of an infinite regress, as it is inherently necessary and uncaused, aligning with Leibniz’s concept of a necessary being. This raises the question: Can a substance serve as a logical substitute for the presumed necessity of a being in our argument?
In accordance with scientific principles and fundamental reasoning, it becomes evident that this substance must possess immateriality, lacks physical attributes, be outside the constraints of space and time, and exhibit consciousness in order to create something. Additionally, intelligence is a prerequisite for understanding and generating contingent entities, coupled with the great power to enact such creation. At this point, the characterization of this “substance” closely aligns with the proposed necessary being. Given the compelling correlation between the attributes of this substance and those traditionally ascribed to a necessary being (God), it is reasonable to conclude that the explanation for the universe is indeed grounded in a necessary being. In light of contemporary scientific insights and logical reasoning, Premise 2 emerges as both logical and sound.
Premises Three, Four, Five, and Conclusion
With Premise 3 serving as a straightforward statement of fact, we can deduce from both Premises 1 and 3 the firm assertion that the universe undeniably possesses an explanation for its existence. To dismiss this would be a clear case of special pleading, suggesting that the universe is the sole entity exempt from needing an explanation and has the capacity to create itself. The assertion that the universe originated from nothing implies a creation from an absence of space, time, matter, information, and energy—a notion that represents a significant leap of illogical and poorly reasoned faith.
Premise 5, being a conjunction of the previously established logical and sound premises, namely Premises 2 and 4, adheres to the rules of logic and is considered logical and sound. According to the principle that a valid argument with true premises leads to a true conclusion, we arrive at our ultimate conclusion: the existence of God, posited as a necessary being.
We have been led to the conclusion that a necessary being, namely God, exists. Any alternative propositions run counter to modern scientific principles, violate logical coherence, and verge on irrationality. The most cogent and rational explanation aligns with the existence of a necessary being as the fundamental reason for the universe’s existence.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is essential to re-emphasize that when embracing the consensus of modern science, these arguments for God not only prove to be both sound and logically valid but also remarkably compelling. We must recognize modern science in order for these arguments to withstand scrutiny. Nevertheless, for the majority of people, this does not, and should not, pose a major problem. Unless one is inclined to dismiss well-established scientific findings, it becomes irrational to reject these arguments. For the theist, who may be unfairly characterized as having to disregard science to support their viewpoints, it would be quite ironic for the atheist to reject one of the most widely accepted scientific conclusions, the idea of a finite universe, in order to uphold their own views. As expressed by world-renowned astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, and as he is about to conquer the highest peak, pulling himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.”8
Notes
[1] Akin, Jimmy. “I’m With Al – Jimmy Akin.” Jimmy Akin, 5 January 2005, https://jimmyakin.com/2005/01/im_with_al-2.html.
[2] Akin, Jimmy. “Less Bang for the Buck?” Catholic Answers, 30 September 2020, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/less-bang-for-the-buck.
[3] “Stephen Hawking Estate.” Stephen Hawking Estate, 1996, https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time.
[4] Melamed, Yitzhak Y., and Martin Lin. “Principle of Sufficient Reason (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 14 September 2010, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/.
[5] Jones, Michael. “The Cosmological Argument.” Youtube, 16 September 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM&t=391s.
[6] Vilenkin, Alex. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Page 176
[7] Nadler, Steven. “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 29 June 2001, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
[8] Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. W. W. Norton, Incorporated, 2000. Page 116