Hobbes raises a good point. I have to first apologise for my lack of sources in my answer, I’m just grossly summarising class notes and haven’t organised my folder very well. I think the main part is from some book by some guy… :P edit: main source: The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law, which I just started reading yesterday ;)
Let’s look at The Cause Argument. The traditional solution to this question is to appeal to the existence of God, i.e God must have caused the universe to exist. Look at the chair you are sitting on. Now, it would be absurd – would it not – to suppose that this chair just popped into existence for no reason at all? The existence of the chair must surely have had a cause. Yes? Similarly with the universe, then. It just isn’t plausible that it popped into existence for no reason. It, too, must have a cause. But then God must exist as the cause of the universe.
This argument is an example of what is commonly known as a cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments begin with two observations: that the universe exists and that the events and entities we find around us always turn out to have a cause or explanation. The arguments then conclude that the universe must also have a cause or explanation and that God is the only possible (or at least the most likely) candidate. (The Design argument is also one of these but I think I’ll leave that one for now :P)
But of course, there are always two sides, and this argument is by no means foolproof. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that God does exist. The appeal to Him as the explanation of the existence of the universe still ultimately fails to remove the mystery with which we began. Let it be asked, what caused God to exist? It was said that it is absurd to suppose that something might come into existence uncaused. As was said about the chair, it cannot have just popped into existence for no reason. But then it follows that God’s existence also requires a cause.
But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity – God – in addition to the universe?
You argue that everything has a cause. Then you make God the exception to this rule. But why not make the Big Bang the exception to the rule? What reason have you given me to add God to the beginning of this chain of causes as an extra link?
The most obvious flaw in the cause argument – a flaw also pointed out by the philosopher David Hume (1711–76) – is that it involves a contradiction. The argument begins with the premise that everything has a cause, but this is then contradicted by the claim that God does not have a cause. If we must posit a God as the cause of the universe, then it seems we must also posit a second God as the cause of the first God, and a third God as the cause of the second, and so on ad infinitum. So we shall have to accept that there are an infinite number of Gods. Either that or we must stop with a cause that itself has no independent cause. But if we must stop somewhere, why not stop with the Big Bang itself? What reason is there to introduce even one God?
Of course, some might be willing to accept an infinite chain of Gods. But such a chain still wouldn’t remove the mystery with which we began. For then the question would arise: why is there such an infinite chain of Gods, rather than no chain?
This is just like the infinite regression of turtles idea.
Despite being a poor argument, the cause argument has always been popular. In fact, when asked to give some reason why they suppose that God exists, the cause argument is the one to which those who believe in God often first appeal. The question of what brought God into existence is simply overlooked.
As Hobbes says, the original question may not even make sense. While it may make sense to ask what caused your chair to exist, it surely does not make sense to ask ‘what caused the universe as a whole to exist’. It seems to me that to ask for the cause of something is to ask what other thing within the universe brought it about. That is how the game of asking for and giving causes is played out. If to ask for the cause of something is to ask what other thing within the universe brought it about, then it cannot make sense to ask what is the cause of the universe as a whole.
That would be to pursue the question of causes outside the context in which such questions can meaningfully be raised.
It is like asking ‘what is north of the north pole?’
On the other hand, perhaps nothing caused the universe to exist. Perhaps its existence is simply a brute fact. Physicists are inclined to accept that some things are just brute fact and inexplicable. Often they explain why one law holds by appealing to others. One can explain, for example, the law that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius by appealing to the laws that govern the atoms and molecules out of which water is composed.
But few suppose that this process can go on for ever. Presumably one must eventually come up against laws that cannot be accounted for or explained in terms of yet other laws. The obtaining of these basic laws is just a brute fact. And if we are to allow that there are at least some brute facts. then why not suppose that the existence of the universe is also a brute fact, a fact that requires neither a further cause nor an explanation? Why suppose that it, too, must also have a cause, an explanation?
But is it plausible to suppose that the universe popped into existence for no reason. The Big Bang didn’t just happen, surely? There must be a reason why it happened.
It doesn’t seem adequate to say that the Big Bang happened for no reason at all. And yet it seems we can say nothing else. Why is there something, rather than nothing? The answer is God. But that answer will not do, as we have already seen.So what does explain the existence of the universe, if not God? That’s a mystery.
It seems that when it comes to the question what is the ultimate cause or origin of the universe? there are four options available to us. These are to:
1. Answer the question by identifying a cause of the universe.
2. Claim that, though the universe has a cause, we cannot or at least do not yet know what this cause is.
3. Claim that perhaps the universe has no cause – it’s existence is simply a brute fact.
4. Deny the question even makes sense.
The problem is that on closer examination none of these four options seems satisfactory. The difficulty with the first option is that as soon as one offers God or indeed something else as the cause or explanation of the universe, the ‘something’ to which one appeals in turn becomes the focus of the demand for a cause or explanation. So it seems that the first kind of answer can never be adequate.
Rather than answering the question about ultimate origins, we merely sweep it under the carpet.
The difficulty with the second option is, again, that if one suggests that the universe has an as yet unknown cause, the question then arises: and what is the cause of that unknown cause? So the mystery is merely postponed.
the claim that the universe simply has no cause, on the other hand, also seems unsatisfactory – is it really plausible to suppose that the universe simply popped into existence for no reason at all? Surely not.
And yet the fourth and final option seems equally implausible – certainly, no one has yet succeeded in providing an uncontroversial explanation of why the question about the cause of the universe makes no sense.
So it seems that, while no explanation can be acceptable, yet neither can the question of the ultimate origin of the universe simply be set aside or dismissed.
Which is why this particular philosophical mystery remains so perplexing. It appears that the question of the ultimate origin of the universe is a mystery that can be neither explained nor explained away.
Some other arguments along this same line are:
1. Cosmoligical Argument:
Kalam Argument: The universe had a beginning and therefore something must have brought it into being: God
Dependency Argument: the universe needs something to sustain its existence now and that something is God.
2. Ontological Arguments – using logical deduction from the idea of God to the necessary existence of God.
3. Moral Arguments: argue from the idea of absolute moral order in the universe (e.g the existence of good and bad) to the existence of God.
4. Design Argument (Teleological): Argue that the world shows signs of design and that God is the great Designer.
5. Religious Experience Arguments: the Reports of religious experience (or maybe just our ‘religious nature’ points to the existence of God.
Do these arguments boil down to science vs religion? So if “The Cause Argument” theory does not “stack up” logically … does this mean that:-
science and religion are opposed?; and
People who accept scientific explanations for the way the world is cannot logically believe in a creator God, or an intelligent designer or the stories in the Bible?
It’s not a matter of either a scientific explanation of the earth or a religious/creationist explanation. You can have faith that a creator God is the explanation behind everything and explains your role in the world whilst accepting all of those explanations of the physical nature of the universe that comes from scientific enquiry.
Nor is it a matter of religion being the way that you explain those things about your physical world that science cannot explain – God of the Gaps? All this does is make God get smaller as science explains more and more over time!
But still they all have counterarguments, and cancel each other out or are each as valid as the other. So where does this leave us?
I think that one must look at Theism at its best and its worst, and Atheism at its best and its worst, and decide which is the most appealing to you, which one makes you a better person or enables you to live a good life, or the life that you want and can accept. I don’t believe in pushing faith on others, I believe it is a personal journey and a choice you make for yourself.