From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:54:33 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

In article <Oct.6.00.06.16.1992.8403@geneva.rutgers.edu> mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>In article <Oct.4.22.02.29.1992.5938@geneva.rutgers.edu> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>Could people on this channel post some opinions on whether they think the
>>universe can be self sufficient (i.e. does it have to have a specific cause)
>>or did it have to be externally created (by God).
>
>The argument that God must exist because the universe could not exist
>without a creator is one of the weakest ever presented. If God can be
>self sufficient and capable of producing the universe why can't the
>universe be self sufficient? This is so simple even a child can
>understand it. Who has not asked "Who made God?" So the bottom line
>is that there is not reason to suppose that the universe must have
>been externally created. Postulating a creator only moves the question
>of ultimate origins back one level. 
>
>Bill Mayne

You are of course correct about what you say.  Since it is a common
misconception it is good that you point this out.  This naive argument
is often mistaken for what is called the cosmological argument that 
came originally from Aristotle.  The cosmological argument is as follows:

1.)  The existence of the universe is radically contingent.  This says 
     the current universe is only one of many possible universes.  A
     merely possible universe can also not exist.  The universe does
     not have sufficient reason within itself to be what it is or even
     to exist rather than not exist.  For the universe to be what it is,
     it must have a cause external to itself that sustains its continued 
     existence and to prevent it from being replaced by nothing.

2.)  This external cause must be a non-contingent or necessary being. An
     infinite regression of contingent causes cannot be the cause of any
     other beings continued existence.  That would be analogous to 
     continuously adding zeros in an attempt to get one.  The action
     of contingent things that we observe can cause other things to
     be changed or to cease to exist, but they cannot be a sufficient or
     sustaining cause of any other things continued existence.  Only a
     necessary being can do this.  A necessary being is a being that has
     sufficient cause within itself for its continued existence.

3.)  The universe, therefore, must have a cause of its continued existence
     that is external to itself and that is a necessary being.  This being
     is God. 

Note that this argument does not beg the question of God's existence nor 
does it talk about God as the creator.

Mortimer J. Adler's book, "How to Think About God" has much to say about
the cosmological argument that is worth while.

I am not sure if I believe that this argument constitutes proof of God's 
existence, but it does pose questions that make the existence of God a
reasonable proposition worthy of belief.  Why are we what we are and not 
something else?  What is the reason for living?  It does not seem to me 
that humans have sufficient reason within ourselves for our own existence.

John