Jump to content

Does god exist? Is the universe finite?


Recommended Posts

In the following essay I shall elucidate both the positions of the proponents and opponents of the cosmological argument for gods existence.


First, I will outline the proponent's cosmological argument for the existence of god. Then I will outline the opponent's position, followed by analysis of both positions, followed by my position, critical analysis of my position, and finally, my conclusion.


Somebody who believes the cosmological argument proves gods existence would say something like this,


'Look around the world, everything you see is either caused or uncaused.'


'Most or all objects/entities rely on something else for its/their existence.'


'There cannot be an infinite series of causes, so there must be an uncaused first cause.'


'The uncaused first cause is in part what we mean by god.'


'Hence, god exists'




'The world contains a collection of contingent things.'


'The argument from contingency states that everything in the world could not be contingent.'


'If everything in our world requires reasons for why it exists and why it has the properties it does then we believe that the same is true for anything.'


'The argument asserts that our existence is a necessary condition of the uncaused first cause, and that uncaused first cause is god.'


Opponents of the cosmological argument would raise several objections, such as the infinite series objection. Why can't there be an infinite series of causes? Another problem with the cosmological argument is that it fails to identify the uncaused first cause with god. For example the uncaused first cause may have attributes god does not have, eg: a will and self-awareness.


And even if there was an uncaused first cause, that uncaused first cause is not necessarily god. The argument from contingency applies necessity to god, in other words, it claims that god is a necessary being. But we cannot apply necessity to an entity, necessity only applies to propositions When we use a propositional linguistic in referring to god we can say whatever we want, ie: 'god is a necessary being.' But in reality, god is what he/she/it is and our propositions do not apply to god in reality.


The opponent makes many valid objections to the cosmological argument, it would seem that our propositions about god would not affect reality in any way. For example, I could propose that all dogs are named fido, but that does not mean that in reality all dogs are actually named Fido, and even if all dogs were named Fido, our words are inert and therefore allow for no way of altering Fido in any way in terms of pure physical reality. The same is true when we apply 'necessity' to god. We can say what we want, but our statement is not a determinant of reality.


Here are some reasons to worry or doubt the objectors positions.


- Many human beings tend to over estimate their ability to predict the properties of the universe, we tend to think we can disprove even the most obvious facts such as looking out into the sky and believing that there is some sort of divine intelligence, maybe doubting that fact is the same as doubting 'I am reading an essay right now.'


- In this information age we tend to think we can explain anything and everything, we sometimes feel almost invincible and eternal. It could be this mind state that leads us to believe that when we die we will be saved by a god and live an eternal life.


I align my position on this issue with the infinite series objection. I think that it is just as hard or harder to contemplate infinity as it is to contemplate the absence of infinity. For example, it may be very hard for many people to imagine a universe with no boundaries, and no end. But it becomes even harder to imagine a finite universe, suppose I travel to the edge of the hypothetical finite universe, what happens when I take one more step? Do I step into a hypothetical brick wall, or can I keep going just one more step. If I can keep going, the universe is infinite, if I am stopped by some kind of barrier or obliterated by a black hole or something the universe is indeed finite. But if there is nothing on the other side of the barrier, where would I be? It becomes very scary to think about what nothing might look like or be like.


Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that just like the universe could have no barrier, so too could there be an infinite series of causes. I think that our universe was caused by another universe, and that our entire existence(universe included) is contained within a higher universe. For example our entire universe could be contained in its entirety within the dumpster behind Wal-Mart or some higher universe and perhaps that higher universe is contained in its entirety behind the Albertsons of yet a higher universe. As so on.


What I am getting at is that I think it is ludicrous to think that there could somehow be an uncaused first cause. I could be wrong because my feeble mind cannot understand how it is that god/ or an uncaused first cause might cause himself to exist. But in all probability, even if god was uncaused and did cause him self to exist, there had to be something that gave him/her/it that power to do so. Something cannot come out of nothing.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something cannot come out of nothing is an observation based on the properties of things in this universe. The idea of God almost inherently requires his existence in an extra-universal realm, where perhaps things can come from nothing.


No doubt, the Cabal of Kabbalah will propose a much more physics-y answer within the hour.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...