The cosmological argument and competing accounts of the origin of the universe

What this dot point is asking

This dot point belongs to Unit 4.2 of the TASC Philosophy course, Life, the Universe and Everything, which examines competing theories for the origin of the universe and arguments concerning the existence of God. The cosmological argument is one of the oldest and most discussed of these, asking why there is something rather than nothing.

Aquinas and the first cause

Thomas Aquinas presented several of his Five Ways as cosmological arguments. The argument from efficient causation observes that everything we encounter is caused by something else. But the series of causes, Aquinas held, cannot stretch back infinitely, for then there would be no first cause and so no later causes at all, which is absurd since causes clearly exist. Therefore there must be a first, uncaused cause, which Aquinas identifies with God. A parallel argument from motion reasons that every change is brought about by something already in motion, requiring an unmoved mover to start the whole process.

The argument from contingency

A subtler version reasons from contingency. Contingent things are those that exist but might not have; they depend on something else for their existence. If everything were contingent, the existence of the whole collection would remain unexplained, since each member only passes the question along. To explain why anything exists at all, there must be a necessary being, one whose existence is not dependent on anything else, and this is taken to be God. This form does not depend on whether the universe had a beginning in time; it asks instead what grounds the existence of a universe that need not have existed.

The Big Bang as a rival account

Modern cosmology proposes the Big Bang as the origin of the observable universe, a hot dense early state expanding into the cosmos we see. Some take this to support the cosmological argument, since a universe with a finite past seems to call for a cause of its beginning. Others argue the Big Bang replaces the need for a divine cause, offering a natural account of the origin. The relationship is contested: a defender of the argument can ask what caused or grounded the Big Bang itself, while a critic can question whether the notion of a cause even applies at or before the initial state, where ordinary time may not extend.

Objections and evaluation

The argument faces strong objections. David Hume and others challenged the causal principle, asking why the universe as a whole must have a cause even if its parts do, a worry about composition. Many critics press the why-not-stop-here objection: if God can exist without a cause, why can the universe not also exist without one, removing the need for God. Bertrand Russell argued the universe may simply be a brute fact. The defender replies that God, as a necessary being, is the kind of thing that needs no external cause, whereas a contingent universe is not. For the TASC course, present a clear version of the argument, situate it against the Big Bang, and weigh whether the inference from the universe to a necessary first cause succeeds.