Central to the Cosmological Argument is the idea that there must be a first cause, and therefore an uncaused cause. One objection to this is that instead of an uncaused cause, there might be a cycle of causes (for example, A was caused by B, which was caused by C, which was caused by A) or there might be an infinite regress. Defences have mean made against this objection, but in this article I want to construct a cosmological argument that avoids the objection altogether.
Along the way I also want to suggest a reality in which you can think of the whole of existence as a single thing, with no two things truly separate, and God as the person who unites it. I also want to show that God is not complicated, or made of parts, as many atheists believe. I have, I hope, been honest about the assumptions I make, and have not tried to make things more plausible than they actually are.
An uncaused cause
Think of the whole of existence, everything that exists, as a thing. Don't think of it as a list of separate things, but as a single thing. Notice that it must contain any cycle or infinite regress. It is not caused. Thus we certainly have an uncaused cause. Let's call it x from now on. So at the moment, x is the single thing which is everything that exists.
A sovereign/all-powerful uncaused cause
The next hurdle for the Cosmological argument is showing that this cause is sovereign/all-powerful.
For now let's define "Sovereign/All-powerful" as "Not restricted or controlled by anything outside itself, and controlled only by itself". Does this description apply to x? Well, consider the properties of x: It has nothing outside it. Therefore, it has nothing outside it that can restrict it. It has no law external to it that can limit it. Everything originates from it. It holds all power. It is controlled only by itself. It fulfils our definition of "sovereign/all-powerful" exactly.
So we have a differently-stated version of the Cosmological Argument:
Definition 1: Let x be everything that exists, considered as a single thing.
Definition 2: A thing is sovereign/all-powerful if it is not controlled by anything externally and controlled only by itself.
Then x is not controlled by anything externally.
Therefore x is only controlled by itself.
Therefore x is sovereign/all-powerful.
Therefore something sovereign/all-powerful exists..
(Note that it does not necessarily follow that all parts of x are sovereign/all-powerful. The whole can possess a property while a part does not. For example, the single team composed of the US President and his pet dog has the power to declare war. But it does not follow that all members of this team have the power to declare war: The dog does not.)
Some may object that our definition of "sovereign/all-powerful" is not satisfying, even misleading, because even if something is not restricted by anything outside itself, it might nevertheless be restricted by something inside itself, or simply restricted, but not by anything. I have two questions in response to this objection. First, in everyday speech surely to be restricted only by yourself is exactly what it means to be sovereign/all-powerful? Second, if something is restricted, and the restriction is not outside itself - not an "outside force", so to speak - then where does the restriction come from? It does not seem forced onto the thing. You might answer that it is simply there, and no reason is needed.
Another objection to Definition 2 is that "sovereign/all-powerful" in the minds of many people entails sentience, which has not be proved. I will argue for this later on.
Only one sovereign/all-powerful uncaused cause
How many of these sovereign/all-powerful things are there? (Hmm, actually many, but only one smallest one)
We know that x (recall Definition 1) is sovereign/all-powerful. Suppose we subtract a piece of dead matter (say, a stone) from x, so now x is the whole of existence except for the stone. The stone is not sovereign/all-powerful. But it seems that x is not made less powerful by lacking the stone. (If the stone did not exist, we could still use the above reasoning to deduce that the whole of existence is sovereign/all-powerful.) Let us assume we can continue to subtract things from x until x is the smallest possible sovereign/all-powerful thing.
One objection to this assumption is that it might never be possible to reach x. We know it is not possible to exclude integers from the set of all possible integers until we reach the highest integer - what if this is similar? We cannot disprove this, but it would seem strange that existence is a self-sustaining infinite regress that does not contain a reason or explanation for its existence.
A second objection is that it might be possible to subtract from x in two different ways until we arrive at two different things (say, A and B) which are both sovereign/all-powerful. However, we can argue powerfully against this objection. Consider these two cases:
(1) There is something that belongs to both A and B
(2) There is nothing that belongs to both A and B
Suppose we have case (1). Let C be the collection of everything that is both inside A and inside B. We know that C is contained in A, which not controlled by anything outside A. Therefore C is not controlled by anything outside A. By similar reasoning, C is not controlled by anything outside B. Therefore C is not controlled by anything outside A or anything outside B. By definition, this means C is not controlled by anything outside itself. Therefore C is sovereign/all-powerful.
At this point, do we want to insert the premise that sovereign (=controlled only by itself) entails all-powerful (=sovereign and controls everything else too)?
That leaves us with case (2). Neither A nor B is controlled by anything outside it. Therefore neither can be controlled or restricted by the other. Since A is sovereign/all-powerful, it can bring about any event E. (For example, E might be the event that A affects B but is not affected by B.) Similarly, B can bring about any event E' that contradicts E (for example, E' might be the event that B affects A but is not affected by A). This would seem to be a contradiction.
Thus both cases (1) and (2) lead to difficulties, or to one sovereign/all-powerful thing inside both A and B.
(Another argument against case (2) is that if something has complete control over itself then it must have complete complete control over everything, since if it cannot control something external to itself then it does not have complete control of its own causal power and influence. This means A would have unrestricted control over B, and B would have unrestricted control over A, which cannot happen.) This is where the word "sovereign" entails "all-powerful". Maybe sovereign should be defined as "not restricted by anything outside itself" and "all-powerful" should mean "sovereign and in complete control of everything outside itself"?
Only one sovereign/all-powerful uncaused cause, sentient and not made of parts
Here is a reason for thinking it is sentient: Sentience seems to correlate with both being controlled by yourself, and not being controlled by other things: You can predict how a piece of dead matter (like a stone) will behave because it is entirely controlled by the laws of physics, but you cannot predict how a person will behave.
Another reason for thinking it is sentient is this: We know x is not limited by any laws outside itself, since by definition it is not limited by any thing outside itself. Everything that humans observe that is limited in power turns out to be limited by external laws. It is impossible to imagine what something would look like if it were not restricted by any laws outside it. Even if you try to imagine a space in which particles pop in and out of existence "at random", you are imagining them (and the time and space containing them) to be controlled by physical laws. The only thing we have observed which it could be is a mind. In fact, the more free and sentient a mind is, the more we will say it is a "law unto itself".
Here is a reason to think it is sentient and not made of parts: Imperfections occur because of separation between things in the world. For example separation between brain cells mean that one part of your brain may not able to access another, making you unable to remember something. Separation between people and groups is what makes communication break down. Wars happen because nations are separate. Errors occur because parts inside a computer are separate and do not communicate with each other correctly. To be sovereign/all-powerful it seems x must not be made of parts. As the sikhs(?) say,"God is one." There is no separation in God.
Write argument for oneness: God is the single deciding point and source of everything that exists. There is no separation in him. There is no imperfection in him. Everything is from him. He is the single unified thing that exists, on which all other existing things depend.
Reason for not being made of parts:
Things under physical law require a lot of intricate effort to make them work. For example, computers and cars are made of many parts, and different parts must be made to interact in a particular way for the whole to work. God, however, requires no effort to make him work. The property that causes God to work is a very simple one: Namely, the property of having no limitations. By contrast, the property of computers and cars that causes them to work is: Limitations, applied in a very precise way, for objects are defined by their shape and the laws that apply to them. That raises the question, "What would something without limitations be like?" Since we have only ever observed physical things, it is impossible to imagine something physical without laws of limitations controlling its behaviour. Maybe one can imagine a space containing randomly-shaped objects appearing and disappearing at random. But even that seems to be controlled by external laws.
People say that in order to be unlimited you need to be complicated. But in order to be unlimited, all something needs is no laws limiting it. That sounds like the simplest thing ever, definable merely in that sentence!
The word "definition" originated from a word that meant "limit" or "boundary". Maybe a thing can be defined by the laws that limit it. In which case, God has the simplest definition! Or even no definition!
Suggestion, might not be true: A mind is not made of parts. Two thoughts cannot simultaneously exist. (Possibly to do with quantum particles in your brain that are not merely copies of each other but the same particle?) You cannot be half of you. Whereas any physical object can be split into two, even an electron. If an electron is defined as the forces it exerts around it, you could imagine the force on one side and the force on the other being separate.
Only one sovereign/all-powerful uncaused cause, sentient and not made of parts, necessary
Reason for sentience and necessary:
(Could mention that the ontological argument and its parodies, such as "a necessary being" or "a necessary being with a purple hat", have varying probabilities of being coherent. But it seems like adding the purple hat decreases the probability. Thus the most likely to be coherent is simply "a necessary being". Then say that the cosmological argument adds evidence for this)
Just as the physicist knows that a closed system, considered as a single thing, never changes its momentum or energy content, regardless of how its parts might transfer momentum and energy between them, so it might be possible to realise that a closed system, considered as a single thing, is all-powerful if there is nothing outside it to limit it, regardless of how its parts might limit each other.
