‘only God Can Be Sufficient Reason For The Universe’s Existence.’ Assess This View.

The statement refers to the cosmological argument and asks whether the cosmological argument sufficiently proves that God is the only reasonable and complete explanation for the fact that the universe exists. This idea was taken up by Leibniz in the 17th Century and more recently by Taylor. Both essentially argued that any explanation not involving a necessary being does not ever give a complete explanation for the world s existence.

Through the first three of his five ways, Aquinas aims to prove that a God must have created the universe. The first way, from motion, draws on the Aristotelean view that all motion is caused by something else. Since the entire universe is in motion, the universe needs something to have started that motion in the first place. That thing must be unmoved, else we must also search for the cause of its movement. This cannot continue to infinity else we have an infinite regress. Hence we require an unmoved mover , or God. This is very much the same proof Aristotle arrives at four his Prime Mover, albeit that this he sees as the final, rather than efficient cause.

In the second way, Aquinas states that nothing can cause itself else it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Hence the cause of the universe must be outside of itself. This cause must need no cause, else we would have to continue our search backwards and so on. Thus, Aquinas posits the existence of a first cause , God.

The third way relates to contingency. Since everything in the universe relies on something else for its existence (I rely on my parents), the universe must rely on something else. If this being were, itself, contingent, then again I would need to continue my search. At some point, I would need a necessary being, something that was self-sufficient, to avoid infinite regress once again.

In all cases, Aquinas argument for God relies on the fact that infinite regress is unacceptable. Taylor explains this by suggesting that infinite regress does not render a sufficient reason why anything should exist in the first place. Instead of supplying a reason why any world should exist, it repeatedly begs off giving a reason. This idea is also supported by Copleston in his debate with Russel when he argues if we proceed to infinity, then there s no explanation of existence at all. As such, it appears the only sufficient reason for the universe existing is God as Aquinas suggests.

However, Russel disagrees. His first attack stems from the Kantian belief that existence is not a predicate. He argues that there is no such thing as a necessary being : The word necessary can only apply to analytic statements. Copleston disagrees and suggests that the statement if there is a contingent being, then there is a necessary being is logically sound. Essentially the two reach an impasse because Copleston s statement (the basis for the cosmological argument) must be addressed in order to identify if necessary being can be proven to have meaning.

Russel later employs Hume s criticism that the argument falls foul of the fallacy of composition. Hume argues that we cannot apply the qualities of individuals within a class to the class as a whole. His example uses twenty particles of matter and he suggests that if I can explain the existence of the individual particles, I no longer need an explanation for the whole. Russel explains how every man has a mother but to say that mankind must have a mother is clearly wrong.

However, Copleston does not truly succumb to the fallacy. He had already stated that the universe is nothing more than the total sum of its members. Thus, if the members are contingent the members as a group still require a cause outside of themselves since no member is sufficient to play the role of first cause . Essentially, Copleston only believes the universe needs a cause because of the problem of infinite regress, rather than misappropriating qualities of the members to the whole.

Hume argues that it is good enough to accept infinite regress, however, as an explanation for the universe s existence. In fact, he says that we can do nothing else. In a way, he believes a sufficient reason is impossible to identify. As a skeptic, Hume believes that the cosmological argument makes assumptions that are beyond our epistemological limitations. Hume, along with Russel, believed that we should just accept that the universe exists as a brute fact. He suggested that since the universe is so unlike its constituent parts, we cannot come to understand it through observations of those parts: though a chair may be caused, a universe does not need to be. Similarly, since universes are categorically different to the component parts of a universe, and we have no experience of the creation of universes, we cannot ever know about their causes or lack thereof.

Hume further questions the belief by suggesting that cause and effect is simply a psychological phenomenon, something we create to help ourselves understand the world. We have no experiences of causal links and cannot say for certain they are there.

These elements of Hume s thought cast much doubt on the argument but are eventually not wholly convincing. This kind of extreme scepticism does not seem to fit with our understanding off the world and there is a case to be made for the existence of causation since actions tend to fit certain predictable patterns. Where Hume s skepticism is most successful, however, is to suggest that there are alternatives to the apparent dichotomy between God and infinite regress as Aquinas puts forward. lt;/p>

Hume asks why the universe itself cannot be the necessary being. Copleston argues it cannot be because the parts are all contingent. However this is not entirely convincing. Our modern scientific view of matter and energy existing in balance seems to support a view of a universe that shifts in organisation but cannot be destroyed. This also coheres with the Aristotelean model of the pre-existing universe that Aquinas is so influenced by. In the end, it could be argued that Aquinas has not considered all of the alternatives and seems to over-simplify the issue in order to introduce God.

Further to this, if we adopt Hume s attitude that our understanding is somewhat limited, we may wish to reconsider whether infinite regress is, truly, insufficient. Some have proposed a model of the universe that involves infinite expansion and contraction. Maybe we are unwilling to accept the truth of infinite regress because we are finite creatures that perceive only finite events and beings.

In conclusion, the cosmological argument can be seen to withstand a number of criticisms but at its core is too quick to write off some alternative explanations and settle on its favoured outcome, God. Although we cannot disprove that God is the cause, the argument itself doesn t, beyond any doubt, establish this to be the only satisfactory explanation, or sufficient reason.