A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe

From Iron Chariots Wiki

Quentin Smith challenges the view that naturalism leaves nature unexplained by arguing that the universe explains itself. Since space and time break down at the Big Bang singularity, there was no first instant--no earliest instant of time--of the finitely old time-series that makes up the universe. Each instantaneous state in any earliest interval is caused to exist and hence explained by earlier instantaneous states, leaving no logical space for God or any other external cause of the universe. Moreover, the contingency of the universe does not entail that there is no reason for its existence; every part of the universe has a reason in earlier parts, and the universe as a whole has a reason in the existence of its parts. Furthermore, there is a concrete sequence of causes and effects that actualized the possibility of a universe at least 15 billion years old and at least 13 billion light years in radius. Since the existence of each state is caused by an earlier state, and since the existence of all these states entails the universe's existence, there is an explanation for each of these contingent beings. This is why our universe exists rather than some other imaginable one. There are no particulars, initial conditions or basic laws of nature that are causally unexplained. To say that a universe is self-caused is not only to say that each of its initial or boundary conditions or particulars are caused to exist (by earlier states), but also that all of its laws of nature are caused to exist and obtain (by earlier states).

[edit]

Objections

Objection 1: One might object that no such argument could possibly succeed, because the claim that "the universe causes itself" is incoherent.

However, it is not intended that the meaning of "self-caused" is that of an individual causing that same individual to exist. What is meant by "self-caused" is that there is a certain type of whole of parts, namely, a temporal and causal sequence of different individuals, with each individual being caused by earlier individuals in the sequence.

Objection 2: A causal explanation of each part of the universe logically explains the existence of the whole, and the Big Bang caused the sequence of states following it therefore the Big Bang provides an additional explanation of the sequence of states following it. But then this is the sort of additional explanation that God provides for the existence of the universe, and that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of our universe, even though the universe contains no beginning point.

Admittedly, it is possible that although the universe has no first moment in physical time, it may in some metaphysical time series, allowing one to make room for God in a complete metaphysical explanation of the universe. The argument, then, might not demonstrate the nonexistence of God, but it nevertheless provides a probabilistic argument against the existence of God.

[edit]

The Scope of the Argument

Big Bang cosmology undermines one major theistic argument, namely, the kalam cosmological argument even though most defenders of kalam appeal to this cosmology for support. According to the kalam argument, anything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself of its existence; therefore, since the universe began to exist, it follows that it has a cause other than itself of its existence.

Supposing on the one hand that "begins to exist" means "has a first moment of its existence." Then the second premise of this argument, the premise that the universe began to exist, should be rejected. For as explained, Big Bang cosmology supports the view that the universe cannot exist at t0 and more generally has no earliest moment.

Supposing, on the other hand, that "begins to exist" just means "is finitely old." Then the first premise of the argument asserts that anything that is finitely old has a cause other than itself of its existence. However, The cosmological argument for a self-caused universe shows that there is no good reason to believe that this premise is true. A finitely old universe with no first moment can have a complete explanation of its existence even if it has no "external" cause.

[edit]