`there Must Be A Reason To Account For The Existence Of The Universe.` Discuss

`There must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe.` Discuss

It is natural that humans question how and why our universe exists as Aristotle himself remarked All men by nature desire to know. Nonetheless, the statement claims that there must be a reason for the existence of the universe which brings forth the question of whether there is always an explanation for the existence of anything that exists. This statement would also imply that the universe exists contingently depending on a reason for its existence many have come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, prime mover, first cause or form of higher being which has a necessary existence. On the contrary, many sceptics and atheists (in particular) would criticise the statement in the belief that the universe doesn t require a reason for its existence& perhaps it has always existed and there is no explanation. Nevertheless, from a personal perspective, I agree that the universe exists contingently and that there must be a higher force that exists necessarily: a God or Gods. To quote Stephan Hawking: Although science may answer how the universe began, it cannot answer the question why the universe bothers to exist. Therefore, I believe that there must be a reason for the universe s existence - that of which science cannot comprehend. Developed from the ideas of Lucretius from On the Nature of Things, I believe that nothing [that is contingent] can come from nothing or, in other words, the universe is not self-causing. Thus, there must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe.

The Cosmological Argument is an inductive, a posteriori and synthetic argument that has been perceived through natural theology and has been developed over time by several philosophers. It tries to find a reason for the universe s existence. From the ideas of Plato (as written in Timaeus that everything had to be created by some cause) and the ideas of Aristotle (behind the series of cause and effect there must be an Unmoved Mover), Aquinas (1225-1274) created 3 applicable ways of proving the existence of God - his reason for the existence of the universe. In the first way, motion, Aquinas states that motion is a change in state from potentiality to actuality and uses this to deduce that there has to be a first mover who put things into motion. In the second way, Aquinas establishes that everything exists and must have a first cause (infinite regression is impossible) which he concludes to be God who created the universe by creatio ex nihilo . Here, a sceptic such as Hume, would question why Aquinas jumps to the conclusion of a Christian God: why not other forms of higher being or several Gods? Perhaps it was natural that Aquinas would conclude the Christian God given his personal faith in Christianity as an Italian priest. Meanwhile, Aquinas third way is contingency where he states that everything is contingent and so, at one point, there would have been nothing in existence. He said that there must exist something the existence of which is necessary and by this he meant to refer to God. The Islamic Kalam argument would agree with the cosmological argument as well as William Lane Craig who developed a modern version of the Kalam argument and stated everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. Craig is clearly in favour of the statement. Having said this, a strong criticism is by Bertrand Russel who argued the Fallacy of Composition by claiming that just because things in the universe are contingent doesn t mean the universe itself is contingent. Nonetheless, in agreement with Aquinas is John L Mackie who reinforced the belief that infinite regression is impossible through the use of a train analogy. Carriages are all contingent and depend on an engine at the front of the train. Each individual carriage (object in the universe) is contingent and the whole train (entire universe) is therefore contingent as it depends on the engine to move this can be used to rebuttal B.Russel as described. On the contrary, Hume had disagreed with Aquinas (and would indeed argue against Mackie s ideas) and pointed out that which he believed to be, a logical fallacy in the argument. Hume argues against causation by pointing out that we often assume that one thing causes another, but it is just as possible that one thing does lt;i>not lt;/i>cause the other. Hume concludes that causality is assumed and not knowable. He declares that we do not know for sure that there is a first cause or reason for the universe s existence. Having said this, the very premise that the universe exists is strong evidence in favour of the statement. Aquinas would restate that the universe is not self-causing and that its existence implies its creation down to the contingency of the universe. Leibniz would have disagreed with Hume too by claiming that even if the universe has always existed (and there is no first cause) there must still be an explanation for its existence.

Aquinas also developed the Teleological argument with his 5^th way: design. Telos means purpose . This states that there must be a reason for the existence of the universe and this reason is an intelligent designer. The universe is so well-designed (e.g. the eye is complex and effective) that it is evidence of an intelligent designer: design qua purpose. William Paley (1743 1805) developed this further in Natural Theology with the watchmaker analogy. He states that a watch is so intricately designed in order to fit its function there must have been an intelligent designer who made it that way. Consequently, the watch represents the universe. Immanuel Kant criticised the idea that the universe has a cause by saying that we can`t experience the beginning of the universe, so we can`t know for certain that it was caused by anything. With the Watchmaker Analogy, Paley could rebuttal that we don t need to have witnessed the creation of the watch/universe to know that it had a designer. From his book he wrote Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature... Nonetheless, Hume would have disagreed with Paley as he criticised the use of analogies in general. He would have likely responded by saying that the universe is a stand-alone example to which nothing is suitable to comparison: particularly nothing mechanical could be compared to nature. Nonetheless, Frederick Tennant supported the ideas behind the teleological argument which implies that the universe must have a reason for its existence. His anthropic principle (detailed in Philosophical Theology) argued that the world is designed for human survival: in terms of its distance from the sun, the design of the body and so forth. Additionally, Occam s Razor (developed by William of Ockham in the 14^th century) states that Plurality ought never to be posited with necessity or in other words: all things being equal, the simplest answer is probably the best answer. Therefore, in support of Tennant and the statement: there must be a reason for the universe and, simply put, that reason is God. In contrast, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who was a philosopher and agnostic, strongly disagreed with the teleological argument by stating that Either there is no God or here exists an incompetent or immoral God down to the fact that all the suffering in the world is the designer s fault. His criticism is questionable however, given the fact that he is a self-acclaimed agnostic and yet he is making assumptions on the existence/nature of God. Christians would also disagree with him and use theodicies to justify the faults within nature. Another criticism to the teleological argument and the concept of a God/creator as the reason for the universe s existence is by Hume who claimed that random activity can lead to disorder. We have no way of comparing order as we can only recognise it. There is no way of proving God as a reason for the universe s existence because any world would seem designed owing to the fact that if it was chaotic it wouldn t survive. Although these are valid criticisms of the teleological argument, Tennant would have probably emphasised the odds that the earth should survive: we are in the Goldilocks Zone and are perfectly positioned in relation to the sun to survive. Intelligent human life is therefore the culmination of God s plan which could link to Genesis and God as creator: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) Similarly, John Wisdom would accept Hume s criticisms whilst also emphasising that the world is too perfect to be accidental and so must have a reason for existence. He uses the example of the ozone layer which seems to have no other function other than to protect us. This is clearly in support of the statement that there must be a reason for the existence and survival of the universe: this reason is God. Richard Swinburne would also certainly justify God as the essential reason for the existence of the universe, given that he himself also developed various arguments for the existence of God e.g. the Inductive Cosmological Argument. Thence, this would support the statement by implying that there must have been an intelligent designer as a reason for the existence of the (purposeful and complex) universe.

In support of the statement, Gottfried Leibniz (1646 1716) came up with his Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that if something exists it must have a reason for existing. This is in complete support of the statement by saying that there must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe regardless of whether the universe it eternal or not. Leibniz then developed his argument further by saying that nothing in the world can be used to explain its existence: only God can. We can t escape the ultimate and out-of-the-world reason for things, namely God. On the other hand, Bertrand Russel and Dawkins would strongly disagree with this because it is a deductive argument. For example, Bertrand Russel said "I should say that the universe is just there, and that`s all". By this he implies that there doesn t need to be a reason for the existence of the universe. Similarly, Dawkins believes in brute facts and would disagree with Leibniz s absolute belief that it is only rational that everything that exists has a reason for existing. Dawkins as well as Russel would rather accept that there are things that cannot be explained. In disagreement with these criticisms is Frederick Copleston who said In order to explain existence, we must come to a being who contains within itself the reason for its own existence. That is to say a being which cannot not exist. By saying this, he was developing both Aquinas and Leibniz s ideas together. In this quote he says that God has a necessary existence, that God is the first cause and that the explanation for the universe is God. Another criticism of Leibniz s principle was by Hume who tries to argue that you can imagine something coming into existence without a cause. However, this argument was proven fallible as it is deductive. For instance, Elizabeth Anscombe gave an example that you can imagine a rabbit without parents, but this doesn t make it exist. Henceforth, there is further reason to agree with Leibniz s principle in that any contingent fact about the universe must have an explanation including its very existence.

As a whole, it is evident from the teleological argument, cosmological argument (in its forms) as well as Leibniz s principle of sufficient reason, that there must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe. Despite the variety of criticisms and arguments against such a conclusion, the fact that nothing can come from nothing and finite objects are contingent implies that there must have been a necessary being in accordance to Aquinas third way as detailed in Summa Theologica. As described, many philosophers and theists have concluded that a God is the ultimate reason for the universe s creation and existence. In fact, even if there is no God or first cause, it is still logical that there is an explanation for why the universe has existed, in line with Liebniz s beliefs as well as the other various philosophers. This develops into the idea that everything contingent has a reason for existing which (in terms of experience and empirical evidence of objects around us) is true. Therefore, despite the criticism, and after further inspection, there must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe.

This resource was uploaded by: Dylan