I’m not sure if something similar like this has already been published somewhere academically or on the web. If so, please link it and accept my apologies, and I’ll give credit where it’s due. I came up with this by just sitting in my room and arguing with my girlfriend’s best friend about her atheism. I was just having a bit of fun with Aquinas’s 5 ways and the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument). This argument is a bit of synthesis of Aquinas and the KCA. I like it because it makes a nice air-tight argument when put together. Of course, one could just stick to the KCA or one of the 5 ways by itself.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause. [1, 2]
- Either the universe’s existence was self-caused or it was not self-caused.
- The universe’s existence was not self-caused.
- If the universe’s existence was not self-caused, then it was caused to exist by something else.
- Therefore, the universe’s existence was caused by something else. [5, 6]
- If the universe’s existence was caused by something else, then there cannot be an infinite regress of causes of the universe’s existence.
- Therefore, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes of the universe. [7, 8]
- If there cannot be an infinite regress of causes of the universe, then the ultimate cause of the universe must be uncaused.
- Therefore, the ultimate cause of the universe must be uncaused. [9, 10]
- Time, matter, and space came into existence with the universe.
- If time, matter, and space came into existence with the universe, then the cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless.
- Therefore, the cause must also be something timeless, immaterial, and not located in space. [12, 13]
I simply won’t go into too much detail defending the premises of the Kalam argument (premises 1 and 2) since it’s pretty familiar to most philosophers, and I’m assuming you’re here reading this far because you like philosophy. If not, then please see this post.
Premise five holds true because it’s absurd to think that something can cause itself to begin to exist. For something to cause itself to begin to exist is to presume that that something already exists beforehand to do the causing. So it exists and it doesn’t exist (since it has to begin to exist) and is thus a contradiction.
Premise six is an obvious truth. If it didn’t cause itself to exist then something else must have.
Premise eight is defended elsewhere in another post of mine. See the part on an infinite regress of causes found under the defense of premise 1.
But what about premise 10? Couldn’t one simply argue its falsity because of idea that there could be a multiverse (MV) and thus time, matter, and space didn’t really come into existence with the universe? One could object that. Besides the fact that there isn’t really any concrete evidence for the MV, I think even if we grant its existence, additional argumentation would establish that the MV would be caused by something uncaused.
Premise twelve is true given contemporary big bang cosmology. Also, William Lane Craig has defended this premise in detail else where. Cf. his book Creation Out of Nothing.
And the consequent in premise thirteen follows since this cause is prior to the existence of time, space and matter. Otherwise the cause would have had to come into existence with the universe, thus lending the cause to exist (prior to the universe) and not exist (since it had to come into being with the universe), which is absurd.
Lastly, premise fourteen follows necessarily from 12 and 13 via modus ponens.
Now, here’s the rest of the argument in which I try to show that even assuming that there’s a MV, it must have been caused by something uncaused.
15. Everything that’s caused must be caused by another.
16. Suppose there’s a MV.
17. If there’s a MV, then another universe, U2 (not the band ha), in the MV caused our universe, U1, to exist.
18. U2, U3, and so on, are either self-caused, eternal, or caused.
19. The universes are not self-caused or eternal.
20. Therefore the universes of the MV are caused.
21. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes [R, 9]
22. Therefore, the ultimate cause of the universes must be uncaused.
23. The MV is simply the mere collection of the universes.
24. Therefore, the ultimate cause of the MV must be uncaused.
25. If there’s a multiverse, then the ultimate cause of the MV must be uncaused. [>I, 15-24]
This argument may be a worthless and failed attempt, it may be decent, or it may be good. Not sure. I had fun thinking about it and throwing it together.