Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Petros Agapetos]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is an argument for God that seeks for an "explanation" of the overall existence of the universe. According to the principle of sufficient reason, each object in the universe has a cause or explanation that justifies why every particular is the way it is. This leads to a chain of associated causation or explanations. The argument is based on arguing the entire chain of causes requires a separate cause. Since an original cause or ultimate explanation is required, it is concluded that God exists.

This sidesteps the need to address the problem of infinite regress. This form of argument is related to the cosmological argument and kalam in that they trace the universe or particular phenomena back to first causes. David Parfit wrote:
"No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing."
The answer to this question hinges on what constitutes an "explanation".

"Concede that atheism’s greatest weakness is its inability to explain where existence came from."

[Petros Agapetos]

David Hume's Argument suggested a variant of the cosmological argument in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

1. Nothing can cause itself

2. From (1), everything that exists has a cause.

3. The chain of previous causes is either infinite or finite

4. Each cause only explains its immediate effect

5. From (2), the entire chain of causes, either infinite or finite, requires a separate explanation for existence, rather than any alternative or nothing at all. "What was it, then, which determined Something to exist rather than Nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive of the rest?"

6. There are no other external causes, chance is a word without [philosophical] meaning.

7. From (5) and (6): "We must, therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent Being, who carries the REASON of his existence in himself, and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction"

This allows the possibility of infinite regress but claims the entire chain of causes requires a cause.

[Petros Agapetos]

Swinburne's inductive cosmological argument

Richard Swinburne updated the cosmological argument in his book The Existence of God by rejecting some of the original premises and arguing that the universe as a whole requires an explanation. His conclusions are modest in that he claims only to have produced evidence that God exists (what he calls a C-inductive argument) rather than a stand alone argument for God. [3] The argument resembles an inversion of the ultimate 747 gambit except that it assumes divine simplicity:

P1. A scientific explanation of the universe only produces theories or "brute facts" but no "explanation".

P2. The universe is complex.

P3. God is simple or less complex than the universe.

P4. God is more likely to occur spontaneously than the universe.

C.Therefore, if we require the spontaneous occurrence of an entity, the occurrence of God is preferred.
It is possible that God is the explanation of the universe.

"Theism does not make [certain phenomena] very probable; but nothing else makes their occurrence in the least probable, and they cry out for explanation. A priori, theism is perhaps very unlikely, but it is far more likely than any rival supposition. Hence our phenomena are substantial evidence for the truth of theism"

According to Swinburne, there are two forms of explanation: inanimate explanation and personal (or intentional) explanation. Swinburne claims that explanations are either based on inanimate objects or intentional agents. For Swinburne, an explanation has reached finality when it is based on the intentions of a conscious agent. An intentional agent implies certain expectations about the universe: that it manifests order, is comprehensible, and favours the existence of beings that can comprehend it. Natural law cannot be explained in terms of natural law.

[Petros Agapetos]

The Universe does not requires such an explanation

There is no basis for the distinction between inanimate or intentional explanations. All instances of intentionality may be explained in terms of natural/inanimate physical laws. Therefore, Swinburne's argument is special case of a teleological argument. An explanation should really relate the phenomena to everyday or direct experience. Unless Swinburne has routine direct experience of divine phenomena, he has not provided an explanation. If anyone has routine direct experience of divine phenomena, they have no need of this argument.

David Hume wrote that each state of the universe is explained by a progression from the previous state and no other explanation is required:

"In...a chain...or succession of objects, each part is caused by the part which preceded it, and causes that which succeeded it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of several parts into a whole like the uniting of several distinct countries into a kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts."

This was also echoed by Paul Edwards:
"The demand to find the cause of the series as a whole rests on the erroneous assumption that the series is something over and above the members of which it is composed."

Swinburne accepts that the existence of the universe might be a "brute fact". However, Swinburne rejects this counter argument, saying a finite set of events requires an initial cause outside this set of events (assuming time is not circular). He claims that if the universe is of infinite age:

""what will be inexplicable is the non-existence of a time before which there was no universe""

Although non-occurrences of hypothetical phenomena do not normally require an explanation.

It is unreasonable to keep asking for explanations of phenomena, and explanation of explanations, and so on to infinity. We must stop somewhere. We do not need to accept Swinburne's assertion that the terminus of explanation is an intelligent agent. Assuming an explanation requires a "conscious agent" is begging the question.

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

The requirement that an explanation actually clarify the phenomenon under consideration is an important one: simply stated, an explanation of a given phenomenon must be based on better understood phenomena, not less understood ones. An explanation based on known phenomena usually allows for it to be tested and potentially falsified.

[Petros Agapetos]

The universe might be necessarily existent
The universe may necessarily have the property of existence. It may be that it could not exist in any other state. Creation may have been non-contingent.

Complexity and probability do not apply to divine concepts
It is possibly invalid to apply concepts such as complexity or probability of occurrence to God. They need to be established by direct experience with divine phenomena to establish their validity.

A-priori arguments cannot establish matters of fact
Overall, this argument is an example of a proof by logic, where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" god with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence. This is arguably inappropriate for establishing matters of fact.

Creation and begging the question
Saying the universe is a "creation" is begging the question because a premise automatically implies the conclusion.

[Petros Agapetos]

The first cause implies God exists

Cosmological arguments conclude that a first cause created the universe. However, a further argument would be needed to demonstrate God exists. These arguments are notoriously weak but without it, the relevance of cosmological arguments is questionable.

The argument runs:

If something exists apart from the universe, it is God.
From the cosmological argument, something apart from the universe created the universe.
Therefore, God exists. (from 1 and 2)

Counter arguments

Unjustified premise: God is the only thing apart from the universe

"Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
— Thomas Aquinas

The assumption that God is the only thing that could exist apart from the universe is an unsupported assumption. If apologists are content to label the entity that created the universe as "God", they have not shown it is anything like the God of their religion. If they assume these concepts is equivalent, they are equivocating their terminology.
Possibly some natural process caused the universe. Since this cannot be ruled out, apologists are using an argument from ignorance. Science often solves problems that were formally a mystery; the origin of the universe could be discovered in future. Therefore, the argument is also god of the gaps.

"This straw man argument has never been defended by any philosopher in the history of thought."
The argument is implicit any time an apologist makes the cosmological argument to demonstrate that God exists. It is usually stated informally by apologists because it is a weak argument.

If we, for the sake of argument, accept that "no one every defended this argument", then claiming the cosmological argument demonstrates God exists is a non sequitur.

[Petros Agapetos]

Questions for users:

1) What is the Big Bang model of the Universe? What does it say and not say?

2) What happened before the Big Bang?

3) Is the Big Bang only responsible for our universe, or for all of existence, that is the cosmos?

4) Do you agree that there must have been a first cause for the existence of the universe?

5) If you believe in God, who or what created God? And who created that creator? How do you solve the infinite regress problem other than with an assertion that your God is the proper place to terminate the regress?