Skip to main content
Humanities LibreTexts

2.3: Objections to the Cosmological Argument (Fred Curry)

  • Page ID
    30049
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    10 Objections to the Cosmological Argument
    Fred Curry16

    argument. It argues that a set of observable facts (premises) about the universe ultimately require God as a way out of an infinite regress (a chain of events with no beginning). There are various forms of the CA, but all share the same structure. What varies between them are the starting premises. We will focus on two versions of the CA: The First Cause and the Prime Mover arguments.

    To understand the CA and its weaknesses, it will be useful to break the reasoning down into discrete steps. The following schematic shows one way to do this. Examining this structure will allow us to more easily follow the argument’s reasoning and see where it goes wrong (spoiler).

    The Prime Mover Argument:

    Observation 1: Some things are in motion.

    Observation 2: Anything in motion was put into motion by another moving thing.

    Step 1: Take any moving object. Call it object O1. Its motion requires explanation.
    Step 2: Because O1 is in motion, and because all moving objects were moved by something else (observation 2), we must postulate some object O2 as mover of O1.

    Step 3: But O2 was in motion and so requires an explanation just as O1 did.

    Step 4: If we postulate an object O3 as mover of O2, O3 would also need a mover (O4) and so on.

    Step 5: This results in an infinite regress of causes.

    Step 6: An infinite regress is irrational.

    Step 7: If an infinite regress is irrational, something must have gone wrong with our reasoning.

    Conclusion 1: The regress followed necessarily from observations 1 and 2, so one of these must be the source of the problem.

    Step 8: Objects are clearly in motion, so observation 1 holds true. So observation 2 must be flawed.

    Conclusion 2: If observation 2 is flawed, there must be at least one exception to it: an object with the power of motion which was not put into motion itself. An “Unmoved Mover.”

    Conclusion 3: That Unmoved Mover is God.

    The First Cause version of the argument follows exactly the same pattern of reasoning with different starting observations. Key differences are underlined.

    Observation 1: Things exist in particular ways/states.

    Observation 2: Anything that exists was caused to do so by a previously existing thing.

    which is the cause of O1.

    Step 3: But O2 exists also, so it requires an explanation just as O1 did.

    Step 4: If we postulate an O3 as the cause of O2, O3 it would also need a cause (O4).

    Step 5: This results in an infinite regress of causes.

    Step 6: An infinite regress is irrational.

    Step 7: If an infinite regress is irrational, something must have gone wrong with our reasoning.

    Conclusion 1: The regress followed necessarily from observations 1 and 2, so one of these must be the problem.

    Step 8: Objects exist, so observation 1 is true. So, observation 2 must be flawed.

    Conclusion 2: If observation 2 is flawed, there must be at least one exception to it: an object which exists but which was not caused to exist. An Uncaused Cause.

    Conclusion 3: That Uncaused Cause is God.

    Many other versions of the CA follow the same pattern. Notably, however, the Kalam Cosmological argument and the version promoted by Gottfried Leibniz do not follow this pattern, but rather argue that a necessary being (God) follows from the mere existence of anything, as opposed to reasoning to God through infinite regress. These arguments will not be covered here.

    The Infinite Regress

    Central to all versions of the CA is the idea an infinite regress is irrational or impossible. But why should we think that that an infinite regress is problematic?
    To see why, engage in a thought experiment. Imagine a line of dominoes. Each is as large as a person and they stretch in front of you and behind you as far as you can see. Now imagine that the domino you are closest to is currently being toppled over by the domino behind it.

    Seeing this you say, “I can explain the motion of this domino. It was pushed over by the domino behind it.”

    This is all well and good, but if your explanation is incomplete. The cause of the domino moving has only been pushed back a step. The motion of the domino tipping the one next to you must be explained.

    Suppose you try to explain this by looking two dominoes behind and note that it too was toppled over by an earlier domino. This again just pushes your explanation back one more time. The motion of that domino now needs an explanation.

    But why can’t you just postulate that the dominoes behind you continue infinitely backward? Why can’t you just say “I’ve explained the reason the dominoes are falling. Every domino was pushed over by another domino.”

    One way to see the problem is to notice that it takes some amount of time for each domino to fall. Since you are postulating that an infinite number of dominoes fell before the one you are observing, that means that an infinite amount of time must have passed before this moment. But it is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time. Since the explanation depends upon the impossible, it must be flawed.


    This page titled 2.3: Objections to the Cosmological Argument (Fred Curry) is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Noah Levin (NGE Far Press) .

    • Was this article helpful?