Thursday, March 10, 2016

Some Thoughts About the Cosmological Argument

From guest blogger, Shanni.

The cosmological argument wants to assert that based on our observations we are able to conclude that there is no thing that moves without an initial mover. By applying this to god and nature we are able to conclude that the universe could not have begun or been “put into motion” without having something start the process (i.e. god). This leads one to the problem of having an infinite regress of movers/creators. If nothing can move without something causing the moving, and by analogy, nothing can therefore be created without a creator than who created god? Not only who created god, but who created gods creator and so on and so forth? I would like to claim that the problem of infinite regress is not a serious problem for a theist for the following two reasons. Firstly, regress is not a problem to the theist since the main objective is to come to the conclusion that there is a god. Meaning, if there is an infinite regress of intelligent designers as long as at some point there was a designer who made the most intelligent being that we now define as god than it doesn’t matter that our god wasn’t the initial being. While this may change some theological arguments for how the universe came to be regress doesn’t undermine the actual argument that there is a god and that he exists. This leads to the second reason regress isn’t a problem. There seems to be a notion that if god’s creators went back infinitely than god would never have been created since he would be the final product. I would like to argue against this because god creators and his creations go on an infinite scale ranging both directions both in the past and the future. If the creators do in fact go back infinitely, like time does, than it would still serve true that all of the things that god has put in motion will go on infinitely in the opposite direction. Therefore, god isn’t the end of the line of infinite progression. Rather, god and everything created after him are simply ticks on the infinite scale of time and creation. 

1 comment:

adam lee said...

I believe you make many good points, and I agree with much of what you have said. One point I do not agree with is the claim that it does not pose a problem to a traditional theist, that god is a part of an infinite regress. To many (including myself) I can imagine a greater being that has the ability to create itself. While I am not arguing the plausibility of such a case, I am saying that it would be greater to do so. For example, God has the power to create physical life, but god's creator has the power to create metaphysical life that can create life. So on an so forth. Each step back in the infinite creation there seems to be a more powerful being behind it. If there are more powerful beings besides god then god is not all powerful and therefore not a traditional theistic god. If he were, it would seem arbitrary to just worship the god who created humans. Why not worship the being who created god who created humans? Why not worship back to infinity?

-Adam Lee