In the last entry, we looked at the discovery of the Big Bang, which aligns surprisingly well with the philosophical and theological inquiries that stretch back thousands of years. In this chapter(?) we’re going to look very briefly at that side of the equation.
Aristotle and the Prime Mover
The Greek polymath Aristotle’s exploration of causation led him to conclude that there must be an “Unmoved Mover” - which is to say a foundational being in need of no higher cause. According to this argument, we know from our observation of the world everything in motion must have been set in motion by something else.
A ball flying through the air did not cause itself to fly. Perhaps a person threw it or kicked it. Maybe it was launched into the air by some mechanical device or some explosive force. In extreme cases, it could even have been picked by the wind.
The one thing we know that did not happen is that it moved itself.
However, this chain of motion cannot regress infinitely. There must be a starting point, a first cause that itself is not moved or caused by anything else. This Unmoved Mover, Aristotle argued, is eternal, perfect and the ultimate cause of everything that exists.
Aquinas and the Five Ways
Building on Aristotle , Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher of the Middle Ages, formulated five different ways to demonstrate God’s existence.
These arguments are examples of “inductive” rather than “deductive” reasoning. This is important to remember. While deductive reasoning aims to derive logically certain conclusions, inductive reasoning looks at specific instances and attempts to draw a probable conclusion from them. This method doesn't guarantee absolute certainty but suggests a highly plausible conclusion based on evidence.
Aquinas looked at patterns in the natural world. Here is what he observed:
As Aristotle observed, things in the world are in motion and anything in motion must have been set in motion by something else. A chain of motion cannot extend infinitely; therefore, there must be a first mover, which is God.
Everything in the universe has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes, so there must ultimately be an uncaused cause, which is God.
Things in the universe come into existence and pass out of it, implying that their existence is contingent on something else. Because not everything can be contingent, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on anything else, which is God.
Objects in the world have properties to varying degrees, suggesting a comparative standard. This gradation points towards the ultimate, maximal degree of all properties, which is God.
There appears to be purpose and design in the natural world, suggesting that such order and purpose are not accidental but the result of a designer, which is God.
All these arguments are related through their foundational premise that the universe’s observable properties and behaviors imply the existence of a prime, unconditioned entity that originates and sustains everything.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which comes to us via medieval Islamic philosophy, has gained significant traction in modern philosophical and theological discussions in more recent years. Its appeal lies in its straightforward premise and conclusion:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This sounds similar to the second of Thomas Aquinas’s ways of knowing God. The difference is that the Kalam argument is focused like a laser on the concept of the universe having a beginning. It avoids deeper metaphysical debates about the nature of causality or the properties of being and instead focuses on a clear, observable phenomenon.
But what is the cause?
The American analytical philosopher William Lane Craig, who is a Methodist, expanded the Kalam argument as follows (I am paraphrasing here):
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, a claim widely accepted in both philosophical and scientific contexts.
Since the universe began to exist, it too must have a cause. This is where empirical evidence of the Big Bang comes in.
Since the universe includes all matter, time and space, its cause must be non-material, timeless, and spaceless to avoid circular causality. In other words, the cause cannot be part of the effect, just as a painter must exist outside of his painting.
Only an intelligent cause, capable of making decisions, could choose to initiate creation from nothing.
The cause must be unchanging, have no beginning, and possessing immense power for it to be able to create and maintain the entire universe without itself being created or undergoing any change.
This does not provide irrefutable evidence that compels acceptance of God’s existence. It is, however, persuasive in that it engages both philosophical logic and empirical evidence to build a strong case for a first cause consistent with many attributes we usually associate with the idea of God.
Harmony with the Big Bang
It’s crucial to remember here that the Big Bang theory does not merely suggest an expansion from a singularity. The very laws of physics as we understand them today began to take shape immediately after the event. The beginning of the universe marked not only the start of space and matter but also the moment when the fundamental forces that govern physical interactions (like gravity) started to operate.
It’s the initiation of those fundamental forces and rules that aligns with the Kalam argument for an initial cause external to the known universe. And it is also a framework that is embraced by multiple faith traditions, reinforcing traditional conceptions of God in a contemporary context that includes Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and other monotheistic religious traditions.