"Sophisticated" Arguments for God's Existence: The Cosmological Argument

In a previous blog I introduced five "sophisticated" arguments for God's existence as proposed by Evangelical Christian philosopher and apologist, William Lane Craig.

Craig claims these arguments arose from a "revolution"/"renaissance" in Natural Theology. He also claims that they effectively refute the criticisms made by "New Atheists" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. However, he also admits that none of the arguments are compelling and Craig's abbreviated version of the arguments certainly don't make them appear to be very compelling. But Craig gives just the bare-bones outline of the arguments. Perhaps if we go into detail they will be better ... perhaps not ... perhaps they may be better arguments for atheism than theism.

In this blog I will take an in-depth look at the first of the arguments, The Cosmological Argument

Here again is Craig's simplified version of the argument:

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 explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Statements 1, 2, and 3 are premises. Statement 4 is the conclusion of the premises. The logic is valid if the conclusion comes naturally from the premises, and it does. So the logic is valid. BUT that does not make the argument sound. The soundness of the argument resides in the truth or falsity of the premises.

Nobody in their right mind is going to argue about premise 3. The universe does exist. So the soundness of the argument depends upon premises 1 and 2. Craig defends premise 1 by saying that it is "plausible". If you find a huge translucent ball, says Craig, it needs an explanation. The universe is nothing more that the hugest possible translucent ball so it too needs an explanation.

Craig acknowledges that premise 2 appears controversial. However, claims Craig, it is logically equivalent to "the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence"[1]. Furthermore he says, premise 2 is inherently plausible. If there is an external explanation for the universe then it must be "beyond space and time". That means it cannot be something material. There are only two things that fit that description, he says; abstract objects such as numbers and an intelligent mind. Abstract objects cannot cause anything, so it must be an intelligent mind. And that is what people generally think of as God.

Analysis of Craig's argument

The first thing to note is that this is NOT a new argument. Its roots go back to Plato and Aristotle. Furthermore, it is not clear to me exactly what this supposed new "revolution" in natural theology has actually added to the argument.

The classical formulation of the argument has been:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

It is not quite the same as Craig's but it is not so different as to require a separate analysis. It too suffers from many of the same problems as Craig's.

The second thing to note is that Craig is right in that the soundness of the argument lies in the truth or falsity of his premises 1 & 2. Let's look at them:

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.

With respect to the universe, what does "an explanation of its existence" entail? In his discussion of premise 2, Craig implies that is synonymous with "cause". But it certainly doesn't have to be. For instance, virtual particles, subatomic particle pairs that pop into and out of existence, have an explanation. That explanation involves Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle within the rubric of quantum mechanics. Part of that explanation is the assertion that no cause can be attributed to their production, even in principle. Furthermore, with respect to the origin of the universe this is very pertinent. Quantum mechanical events tend to occur in very circumscribed areas of space and under conditions of extreme strong field forces. According to the Big Bang Theory, this is exactly the situation that was present at the moment of origin of the universe as we know it. So if the universe is composed of a mass of virtual particles then it has an explanation but no cause. So it NOT necessarily true that the explanation of the universe need be God. So we have a plausible falsification of premise 2 right away.

But Craig asserted that premise 2 is the logical equivalent of the atheist's premise that if God doesn't exist then the universe has no explanation of its existence. So then if we falsify Craig's premise 2, then don't we also falsify our own premise. Well we would if that WERE our premise. At least it is not mine. I have written a blog in which I discuss several possible scenarios for the origin of the universe. All of them constitute an explanation of sorts, and in only one of them is that explanation God (and it didn't come out looking very good). So it is not true concerning Craig's claim about our premises.

But, what about Craig's plausibility argument for premise 2? He says that an external cause of the universe must be outside of space and time. Is that true? One of the scenarios for the creation of universe I discussed was Lee Smolin's evolutionary model of the universe. In that scenario, daughter universes are spawned from black holes in parent universes. In this scenario the space and time of the daughter universe is different than the space and time of the parental universe, but the cause would have its own space and time.

Craig says that the cause cannot material, but there are several scenarios in which the cause IS material. That assertion is not necessarily true either.

Then Craig says that the only causal agency known that is immaterial and beyond space and time is an intelligent mind. Er ... the only intelligent mind known that comes closest to being able to create things like the universe is ... ours. And that is not immaterial. It is made up of the interconnections of the human brain.

I suspect Craig would disagree. I suspect that he is a dualist that believes that the mind and body are two separate things. But if that is the case then how are they connected? We know that brain injuries can lead to behavioral changes that last a lifetime (see the case of Phineas Gage). If the mind is immaterial then why would a physical injury to the brain affect it so?

Schizophrenics will lose their paranoia when treated with appropriate drugs. These drugs act at dopaminergic synapses. Why would changing the activity of dopaminergic neurons change beliefs if the mind and brain are two separate entities?

Alzheimer's patients have histologically detectable damage to their brain. And the areas of the brain in which this damage occurs correlates with the patient's symptoms. Why would this be the case in which the mind and brain are two separate things?

Sleep deprivation will eventually lead to profound mental changes that are completely eliminated once the person is allowed to regain their sleep. These changes are identifiable by electroencephalography which records the electrical activity of the brain. Why would this happen if the mind is not part of the brain?

One argument is that the mind though intact cannot properly interact with a damaged brain. As an analogy, suppose you had the best violinist in the world. He would not be able to play nearly as well with a violin in which several of the strings were broken.

But how well does that analogy fit? The violinist may not be able to play as well, but he should realize that something is wrong (if his mind is intact). Realizing that he may be able to improve his play. Brain damaged patients are incapable of understanding what is wrong. They do not seem to be able to improve on their own. So the analogy doesn't hold.

The evidence strongly supports the mind being part of the brain.

The final problem with Craig's argument is that it fails in its explanation for God. If everything that exists has an explanation, then what is the explanation for God. Craig would say that the explanation for God lies "in the necessity of [God's] own nature". He would say that God would have to be eternal.

But is this so? Suppose that the universe as we know it is a science experience being simulated on a computer of a 11 dimensional pimple-faced computer geek. There is no reason to suppose that eternality MUST be a part of God. There is no reason to suppose that God MUST be outside of space and time.

The only reason to suppose that God MUST be separated from space and time is that it avoids having to explain God's existence. But God is the only thing that is separated from space and time. So in that case then the whole argument boils down to special pleading for God's existence.

But not only that, it is a singularly unsatisfying explanation. What does it mean to be "outside of space and time"? Space is the arena where events take place. Time is the interval between events. If God is outside of space and time does that mean that there are no events in God's existence? Or does everything happen at the same time? If the former then God himself doesn't seem to be able to exist. If the latter, then it is as though God has just popped into existence. In either case, the picture it presents doesn't make sense. Is a non-understandable explanation for a phenomenon any better than not understanding the phenomenon in the first place? I don't think so.

===================
NOTES
[1] If we let:

p="the universe has an explanation", and
q="that explanation is God"

Then we can represent premise 1 as If p then q.
The truth values of this type of statement is exactly the same as the truth values for its contrapositive. Therefore, the original statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. The contrapositive of an "If p then q" statement is "If not q then not p". That would translate into: "If God is not the explanation for the universe then the universe doesn't have an explanation".

This is not quite the same as Craig's assertion that "If God doesn't exist then the universe has no explanation of its existence". However, considering the other problems with Craig's characterization of the argument, I do not consider this minor quibble worth anything more than this footnote.