Jan 15, 2010
Vertical Cosmological Argument: Formally Stated
This argument is based on first principles in logic. I may end up modifying this post later to include those principles and make it easier to follow if needed. However, formally stated, this argument for the existence of God is stated as (this particular version of the argument is presented in Norman Geislers’ Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2006, p. 253):
- Something exists (e.g., I do)
- I am a contingent being
- Nothing cannot cause something
- Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
- Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
- But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in those types of activities)
- Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy
- But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e, not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction
- Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way
- This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what is could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings)
- Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists
- Such a being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God
- Therefore, the theistic God exists
A modified version was presented in my class by Professor Reed and takes the following form (this is from my class notes):
- Something exists (e.g., I do)
- My existence is possible (i.e., possible but not necessary because my non-existence is possible)
- Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another
- The cause of the existence of every composed being must be an uncaused cause
- This uncomposed and uncaused cause of all composed being must be necessary, changeless, eternal, unlimited, pure actuality, and omnipotent
- Further, this cause must be an infinitely (i.e., unlimited) knowing being
- This first cause must be infinitely good (omnibenevolent)
- Finally, this infinitely good cause is personal
- Therefore, there exists a first cause of all possible beings that is necessary, immutable, eternal, infinite, pure act, omniscient, one, uncaused, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and personal
- Now whatever is all of this is appropriately called “God”
- This God is identical with the one described in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
- This God is identical with the God of classical theism
I believe Professor Reed offered a slightly different version than the one given above. Once I am able to access the site again (it’s down) I’ll check it and if it is different, then I’ll post it here as well. Please offer any comments, critiques, or requests for clarification.
I like it. But I think the atheist of the world will go crazy of this:
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
I think there needs to be some fleshing of statement #4.
What specifically are you looking to have fleshed out?
For a quick understanding of the argument overall, let me just say that “cause” is used in the sense of causing current existence this very moment. This argument is not concerned with original causation (what began everything), but rather what is the current cause (what is sustaining everything at this very moment in time). So “cause” needs to be understood as sustaining cause, not originating cause.
To unpack that a little let’s think about your existence? If I asked you how you came into existence, you could say that it is was a result of your parents – that’s origination. But if I were to ask you why you exist right now, the same answer doesn’t suffice. Why not? Because one or both of your parents could be dead, yet you would still continue to exist. Therefore, something else must be causing you to exist right now that is not your parents, so what is that cause? Whatever that answer is, that is the sustaining cause for your current existence. That is what this argument is pointing out.
Let me know if that helps or if you are after something else a little more specific. I can flesh out premise four for you if you like.
Thanks for commenting.
[...] You can find the other two versions of this argument here. [...]