The Thinking Atheist's Meme Needs a Rethink
I’ve seen several people on Twitter criticizing this meme—rightfully so.
I’ve seen several people on Twitter criticizing this meme—rightfully so. It’s quite stupid. Why? Because, as any learned person (adjusts monocle) on the subject will tell you, no cosmological argument taken seriously in the history of philosophical thought—and I mean none (not from Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke, Lonergan, etc.)—features the premise that everything has a creator. The meme attacks a complete caricature, and when shared by an account called "The Thinking Atheist," the irony practically punches you in the face.1
As I’ve explained before (with more detail here), the premise in cosmological reasoning regarding causality or explanation is far more refined. One might say, for example, that contingent things have a cause, or that composite things have a cause, or that mutable things have a cause—but no argument claims that everything has a cause (let alone a creator). In fact, many cosmological arguments proceed explicitly from the commitment that not everything can have a cause, because that would lead to absurdity, for various reasons. Therefore, at least something—perhaps even just one thing—must be uncaused.2 The investigation then focuses on what sort of entity could possibly be uncaused.
This latter approach is taken by thinkers like Joshua Rasmussen and Fr. Robert Spitzer. They start with a simple thought experiment: Could everything (collectively) have a cause?3 The immediate—and, if I may, obvious—answer is “No.” Outside of everything is nothing, so nothing could be the cause of everything. The implication is that something—at least one thing, though maybe more—must exist uncaused.
It’s not my intention to defend this line of argumentation here, and even if that argument has force, it doesn’t immediately tell us what the uncaused thing is—perhaps it’s the universe as a whole, or some turtle, or God (of course, these thinkers go on to argue that it’s God). For our purposes, it’s enough to point out that, despite what The Thinking Atheist suggests, not only do many formulations of the cosmological argument not begin with the idea that everything has a cause or creator, but several base their argument almost entirely on the claim that not everything can have a cause or creator.
Just how bad is this objection? Honestly, I think it's maybe one small notch above the "If evolution is true, then how come I've never seen a monkey give birth to a human?" complaint. Maybe.
Importantly, such formulations sometimes make use of plural quantification (discussing groups of entities collectively); however, not all cosmological arguments rely on this.
The argument is quite simple as I understand it:
Either
(1) existence is infinite and has no start. It could take all sorts of forms at various times but must include our existence (universe) as one of the possibilities and iterations. This is called infinite regress. This has implications, and an infinite number of them are absurd. So it is ruled out.
Or
(2) existence had a beginning. Since (1) is not possible because it is absurd, then this option must be the answer logically. If there is a third, I have never seen it. So the answer is (2)
Now the logical answer is (2) so we are then forced to answer this by stating its implications or what is probable or certain. If there is an answer that explains this, then it is a logical solution to the basic question of why does anything exist. If there are more than one logical answer, then the issue is what is most likely.
So far, there is only one logical answer. Namely, a simple entity whose existence is uncaused. It must exist outside of change or it exists outside of time. (define time as change). Such an entity will explain everything and nothing else will. So by process of elimination or logic, the answer is an entity that is self existent and unchanged and exists outside of time.
Then many characteristics of this entity are discoverable or what this entity must logically be. Two characteristics are that it must be extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable because the existence we see must have been the result of such.
The above is my understanding and if anything is wrong with the reasoning, I would certainly like to see it. It definitely could be fallible in ways I have not seen. I believe it is consistent with what Patrick Flynn believes though I understand that he has added much more than what I have stated. My objective is to make the basic argument simple so that someone with a grade school education could understand it and also understand that there is no valid alternative out there. The second part of this is the most important part, that there is no valid alternative.