Cosmological Arguments for God's existence argue that there must be a first cause, which itself is uncaused. 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, B was caused by C, and C was caused by A. A second objection is that there might be an infinite regress of causes. Defences have mean made against these two objections, but in this article I want to build a cosmological argument against which the objections cannot be made.
The main difference between typical cosmological arguments the cosmological argument in this article is this: Usually, cosmological arguments try and find a particular thing that exists, i.e. a first cause, and then show that its properties are the same as God's properties. However, in this cosmological argument, I want to take everything that exists, consider it as as a single thing, and show that it has certain properties. Then I want to show that, from those properties, it follows that everything that exists contains God.
Along the way I also want to paint a picture in which the whole of existence is a single thing, with no two things truly separate, and God as the person who unites it. I also want to suggest that God is not complicated, or made of parts, as many atheists believe.
An uncaused cause
Think of the whole of existence - everything that existed, exists, and will exist - as a thing. Don't think of it as a list of separate things, but as a single thing. Call it X for now. Notice that X must contain any cycle or infinite regress of causes. X is not caused. Therefore we can say with certainty that there is an uncaused cause.
A sovereign uncaused cause
The next hurdle for the Cosmological argument is showing that this uncaused cause has certain properties.
For now let's define "sovereign" 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, since it is the whole of existence. Therefore, it has nothing outside it that can restrict it. It has no law external to it that can limit it. It holds all power. It is controlled only by itself. It fulfills our definition of "sovereign" exactly.
Here is our argument so far:
Definition 1: Let X be everything that exists, considered as a single thing.
Definition 2: A thing is sovereign 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.
Therefore something sovereign exists.
(Note that it does not necessarily follow that all parts of X are sovereign. The whole can possess a property while a part does not. For example, the 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 lacks this power.)
Some may object that our definition of "sovereign" 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? 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.
Another objection to Definition 2 in the minds of many people, "sovereign" entails sentience, which we have not proven. We will return to this point later on.
A sovereign, all-powerful uncaused cause (do we want this?)
There is something else we can say about X, apart from its sovereignty.
Define "all-powerful" as "sovereign, and controls everything".
Since X is sovereign, it controls everything inside it, which means it controls everything.
An irreducibly sovereign uncaused cause
At this point we want to ask: Is there anything we can subtract from X such that the remainder of X (that is, everything in X except for the thing we subtracted) is sovereign? For example, if you subtracted a piece of dead matter, such as a stone, from X, would the remainder be sovereign?
This brings us to a couple of new definitions:
Define something as irreducibly sovereign if it is sovereign, and contains nothing sovereign except itself.
Define something as reducibly sovereign if it is sovereign, and contains something else sovereign not equal to it.
In this section, we argue that there is something irreducibly sovereign. To do this, let's consider all possible cases:
Case 1: X is irreducibly sovereign.
Case 2: X is reducibly sovereign, and contains nothing irreducibly sovereign.
Case 3: X is reducibly sovereign, and contains something irreducibly sovereign.
Case 1 seems very implausible to me. There seem to be things, like the stone we mentioned earlier, which if subtracted from X, leave the remainder sovereign. However, even if case 1 is true, that still proves what we want to prove, that there is something irreducibly sovereign.
What about case 2? Case 2 says that we can exclude things from X without harming X's sovereignty. It also says that no matter what we exclude from X, we will always be able to exclude more without harming X's sovereignty. This is difficult to imagine, so let us look at an analogy: In mathematics, you can exclude the smallest integer from the set of all positive integers. You can repeat that as much as you like, but you will never be left with the highest integer. What if we face a similar problem here? This might be the case, but it would seem strange that the whole of existence is a self-sustaining infinite regress that does not contain a reason or explanation for its existence.
That leaves us with case 1 or 3, that there is something irreducibly sovereign.
Only one irreducibly sovereign uncaused cause
In this section, we argue that there is one, and only one, irreducibly sovereign thing. To do this, let us suppose there are two different irreducibly sovereign things. Call them A and B. Consider these two cases:
Case I: There is something that belongs to both A and B.
Case II: There is nothing that belongs to both A and B.
Suppose Case I is true. 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. This is obviously a contradiction, since C is contained in two different irreducibly sovereign things.
That leaves us with Case II. Consider the following argument against Case II:
Neither A nor B is controlled by anything outside it. Therefore neither can be controlled or restricted by the other. Since A is sovereign, it can bring about any event E inside it. (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' inside it, even if E' 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.
Shrewd readers may have spotted an assumption with the reasoning above. Earlier, we defined "sovereign" to mean "not controlled by anything outside itself, controlled only by itself". In the argument against Case II above, we say that if something is controlled only by itself, it can put itself into any possible state, and that if it can put itself into any possible state, it has complete control of its own causal power and influence, and therefore it can put anything else into any possible state. Therefore, we have deduced from a thing being sovereign (controlled only by itself) that it controls everything else.
If this assumption is unconvincing, then instead of making the assumption, you can simply re-define the word "sovereign" to mean "controlled only by itself, and also controls everything". A quick scan of the arguments above show that we can repeat them using this new definition of sovereignty without much harm. (Check this! Maybe a different word, such as "all powerful" would be better.)
If these arguments against Cases I and II are successful, then there must be exactly one irreducibly sovereign thing.
Only one sovereign 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 in machines happen because one part of the machine fails to communicate correctly with a separate part. Errors in computing usually happen because one instruction fails to communicate correctly with another, or is works against the other, either accidentally (programmers failing to communicate) or deliberately (a computer virus, for example) . To be sovereign, it seems X must not be made of parts.
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.