Christianity Perfectly Explains Ontological Cosmology
Christianity is the only world religion which perfectly explains ontological cosmology and it isn’t even close.
Understanding Formatting Logic Herein
This is a brief argument paper during my graduate studies in Christian Apologetics.
However, it is reformatted for digestibility on this website. Largely, this will mean ‘restructuring sentence length’ (shorter), necessary paragraph breaks not imperative in a higher education environment, and inserted images.
It was further necessary to remove “sub-sections” as a matter of proper optimization and formatting. Put more simply, if there is no reformatting, this information will appear never in search engine rankings.
There are paper which accomplish this without such reformatting, but they are typically on peer-reviewed journals, government websites, or higher education platforms. These platforms have “search engine ranking authority” and can thus not be penalized for what smaller, unknown websites will be and are.
Christian Ontological Cosmology Posit
The posit there exists an eternal being who is omnipotent, lacks thisness, and is ontologically necessary is not only accurate, but is the only view which stands up to the scrutiny of rigorous examination, and should be unwaveringly preached as a matter of theological necessity.
This being, whom Christians refer to as ‘God’, exists on a yet unexperienced plain, and is a necessary fine tuner of the universe. The cosmological argument explains existence through a cosmological modeler, with omnipotent power, who existed before the aforementioned ‘start point’.
The start point, therefore, must have been a “caused” event, which demonstrates a process instigator. Therefore, I find the Big Bang Theory, which refuses to identify a “causal factor” or simply states such cause is a yet unknown scientific process, wholly unsatisfying.
Its' illogical defies sound reasoning and violates the scientific method academia puts forward as a governing principle.
To effectively present the thesis of this paper, a definition of an ontological argument must be offered. An ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God, by establishing the existence of a necessary being1.
When one considers seemingly infinite expanses of matter, the vastness of the observable universe, and everything which exists, the ontological argument is not only necessary, but is the only logical conclusion.
Even if one does not accept a divine being as a matter of necessity, some form of pre-existent premise must be accepted on which the universe is modelled.
Ontology, properly explored, as well as accurately modeled, explains both the discoveries of known physics as well as the cosmological modeling. The theoretical framework in cosmological modeling, and in the interpretation of observational data, tacitly includes the assumption of structural stability2.
This scientifically unexplainable issue lends credibility to the existence of a master cosmological modeler. Science offers an explanation that the universe began in a chaotic manner. Unfortunately, this view has been adopted in certain Christian theistic circles as well.
This theory, The Big Bang, will be discussed later3. However, the issue of a chaotic beginning is problematic. If the universe began from chemically induced chaos, as adherents to this theory suggest, there exists no testable evidence.
Certainly, none which conclusively proves that ‘elegant order’ can result from uncontrolled, chemically induced chaos.
Put more simply, the scientific dismissal of a cosmological modeler not only fails the scientific method’s own defined parameters but is rife with illogic4. Directive intelligence is the only logical solution which is wholly satisfying.
There exists no empirical proof that an ‘unconscious’ nuclear reaction can both ‘self-create’ and result in some form of “creative” order. One cannot credibly believe that ‘order’ comes from ‘chaos’ without defining both, assigning functions, and bringing into fruition creative purpose. Cosmological modelling is indicative of an ordered, causal direction which is contrary to chaos.
A Brief Cosmological Argument
The earliest dated Western version of the cosmological argument is found in Plato’s Laws, which is a classical argument rooted in Aristotle’s physics and meta-physics works5.
The cosmological argument is less an argument and more a specific type of argument6. Its function is using a general pattern of argument that makes an inference from alleged facts, about the universe, as well as the being who created the universe.
This argument style is expansive and can be tailored to fit a specific set of questions, challenges, and assumptions. Put more simply, and because the cosmological argument is not a, per say, ‘argument’, rather a specific type, it is flexible.
This does not suggest that the facts behind the argument can be ‘flexible’, rather, how one presents them. For instance, there is no flexibility with having, as an immutable imperative, an identifiable cause for the existence of everything.
Theists assign this “existence” the moniker of “God.” However, there can be flexibility in how ‘God’ is identified (God, causal factor, designer, intelligence, etc.).
Christian Apologists’ Case for Cosmological Modelling
Richard Swinburne is more than a supporter of the cosmological argument having assisted in both its expansion and refinement. Although he has been critical of the ontological argument, it is difficult to separate his view of cosmology from ontology teaching the necessity of God’s existence.
It is perplexing that the foundation of cosmological order can be so effectively presented yet exist separate and apart from foundational ontology. Nevertheless, he boils the cosmological argument down to a simple definition: “the cosmological argument argues from the existence of a complex physical universe (or something as general as that) to God who keeps it in being”7.
Swinburne further clarifies the issue of credibility by linear process from premise to conclusion. He offers that certain philosophical arguments for “God” may be priori or a posteriori. The former argument has, as its premise, both logical and concept-based truth. The latter begins with observable experience8.
Swinburne beautifully aligns both into a larger truth by stating both can be true at the same time and are not “mutually exclusive”. If theistic beliefs are based on “God’s” unbound infinity, such a being can not only create observable experiences for Himself, but others as well.
Theism is concerned with coherence of the claim that there is a divine being who is referred to as God9. This God is understood in many ways such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
If this divine being is understood to possess such properties, but not limited to certainly, both the priori and posteriori premise become self-evident. None of this, so far, should suggest that God and science are mutually exclusive.
It is probable that no contribution to cosmological thinking is as significant yet ignored as the contributions of Arab philosophers and theological thinkers10. Before proceeding, I, in no way, endorse the portion of Arab culture which adheres to Islamic religious doctrine.
However, theological differences do not negate Islamic philosophical or scientific contributions to humankind. The major thrust of the Kalam argument is the existence of God. There are six major components of the Kalam cosmological argument as understood by Western thinkers11.
First, the argument for contrary nature of simple bodies. This means the basic elements of the universe and understanding these elements exist, must have been created by God. Second, the argument of experience ex nihilo, is not unlike our experience. Third, the argument for the finitude of motion, time, and temporal objects.
The main thrust of this portion of the argument is that motion could not have originated from eternity, where God exists, rather, must’ve had a beginning, which, a beginning, does not exist in eternity.
Fourth, the argument for the finitude of the world. Since the world is composed of finite parts, it must be a finite world and therefore must’ve been created. Fifth, the argument from contingency: the world does not have to exist, therefore, something willed it into existence.
Sixth, the argument from temporality: bodies cannot be void of accidents, which are temporal; whatever cannot exist without the temporal is temporal: therefore, the whole world is then temporal and must’ve been created12.
The Kalam argument believes that God created the universe, was outside of temporal time and dwelt in eternity. Further, and is the cosmos reflects the existence of God’s will.
An ontological argument must be theistic because it proclaims the existence of God. Theological differences with “who” this divine being is, and any moral differences within these theologies aside, the Kalam argument, while far short of totally satisfying, makes solid theistic points.
The Coherence of Theism
Theism is defined as the doctrine that there is a God with most of the following properties. First, He is a spirit without a body (omnipresent), Next, He is the creator of the universe with limitless abilities. These abilities, such as (omniscient), being perfectly good, and a source of morality, eternal, holy, and worthy of the worship of the created14.
When one examines the simplest of life forms in nature, it begs the question of where did life come from? There are mainly three belief systems within philosophical thought on the matter. First is the ‘atheist’ who, by the declaration that nothing exists outside of the natural, declares that it is nature, itself, that caused nature.
Next, is the ‘agnostic’ who is neither totally convinced by the atheistic nor theistic view. Last, is the ‘theist’ who believes there is a God/Divine cause who, at minimum, set in motion the cosmological model.
The cogent reasoning of theism stands in stark contrast to the nonsensical, and illogical view of atheism. Atheists propose that it is nature, itself, that began, sustains, and continually develops nature.
This view could deserve consideration if not for one overarching question yet to be answered in a satisfying manner: how can nature, having no higher form of consciousness, develop life with higher consciousness than itself?
By ‘higher consciousness’, I am indicating a being that is self-aware, frequently goes against the laws of nature, and has its own will, independent of its supposed creator: nature. The other view, that of the agnostic, while illogical, makes more sense than the atheist. This view is wise enough to ‘ask the question of origin’ instead of rejecting that which it does not understand outright.
Theism is vastly superior to both and explains the cosmological model, answers the objections of the atheist, as well as the uncertainty of the agnostic.
Criticisms of the Cosmological Position
The theistic cosmological position has criticisms and admittedly has “gaps is proof” of posit. One such alternative arising from such criticism is the Big Bang Theory. This theory offers that out of a quantum singularity, the universe emerged approximately thirteen (13) billion years ago15.
This singularity spawned everything in the cosmos. Supporters, and thereby critics of the cosmological model, believe in scientific naturalism which supposes that nature both created and sustains itself.
This theory’s credibility suffers from criteria originating from within its own model. For instance, the Big Bang has no provable, testable, and reproducible evidence as demanded by the “scientific method.”
The scientific method indicates that while observational evidence has some value, it is not enough to establish fact-based science. Since the Big Bang can neither be observed, nor replicated, even on the smallest scale, it does not meet the standard of scientific fact.
Along with The Big Bang Theory, comes the Theory of Evolution which, itself, also criticizes the theistic view. Factually, it is difficult to separate The Big Bang from the Theory of Evolution.16 When the foundations of The Big Bang Theory is examined, there can only be one logical conclusion – it lacks the evidence of scientific certainty put forward by men like Dr. Stephen Hawking.
Therefore, if anyone believes in something they can neither prove, test, or replicate, it is not fact-based science and must be called what it is: faith. I submit that belief in the Big Bang, and Evolution, is unscientific, non-fact-based, illogical, and more comparable to ‘faith’, which is far short of “fact.”
How Theist David Hume Hurt Christianity
David Hume lived in the 16th century and had contributions to religion that have had timeless impact17. He was referred to as “The Great Infidel” by those who knew him best. One of his greatest contributions to the philosophical argument against cosmology, was his argument against accepting the testimony of those who witnessed miracles.
Miracles are occurrences which cannot be explained by scientific or natural processes. Natural humanists believe very few things exist in nature that cannot be explained by scientific processes. This, by definition, excludes the belief in witnessed miracles which, although Hume possessed a religious worldview, openly disputed miracles18.
Hume’s direct challenges to the witness of miracles must, therefore, be viewed as on one accord with the natural humanist view. It posits that the explanation of miracles can be other than what was witnessed. Hume, presenting himself as a man of faith, subtly disguises his argument for scientific naturalism in theistic terms.
His stated aim was to show that belief in miracles is not rational and, in fact, may be a direct challenge to “religious faith”. Of course, this argument is nonsensical because the very point of faith is to believe in, first, things that we cannot see.
Next, to accept God, in whom we put faith, not only can violate natural laws (miracles) but allows humankind to observe such violation.
Though Hume believed himself to be serving the cause of faith by his unreasonable argument, the unintended outcome was providing a stumbling block to the faith he claimed to follow. His argument does not stand the test of logic and therefore, is, although subtle, an attack on theistic cosmology.
The Challenging Position of Non-caused Creation
Before presenting a brief argument for “cause”, it is important to define what I mean by both “caused” and “uncaused”. A “caused” universe is theistic in approach with a supernatural, divine intelligence directly creating the cosmos.
When referencing “non-caused” creation, this does not suggest that those who do not hold a theistic view, do not believe in “cause.” It is only indicative of their disputing theism’s causal posit. The difference between these views is “what” caused the creative event.
A more appropriate definition of non-caused is “naturally spontaneity”. This position is challenging to say the least. Key to natural spontaneity is the belief that a nonconscious, non-intelligent cause created the universe and intelligently manages the result.
More simply: the spontaneously creative view wants us to believe that not only, for example, did the ocean create itself, but also the entire oceanic food chain which exists within it. It is the ocean’s function to sustain life within it. To suggest, however, that water spontaneously “created” life, undirected, is not only unsatisfying, but absurd prima facia.
Water has an origin point, as does the life within water. Even a spontaneous event has a source which led to its personally definable spontaneity. This view must be soundly rejected as unsatisfying.
Richard Swinburne and Kalam’s Alignment
Richard Swinburne’s defense of the cosmological argument is an aggregate product of many who came before. One such person was Susanna Newcome who offered a ‘pre-cosmological treatise’ aligning principles of God’s existence. However, neither of these two ‘broke new grounds’ conceptually.
The Christian worldview stretches back to the time of Jesus of Nazareth, whose own worldview stretched back to the beginning of creation (Old Testament). This theistic view has not changed and remained steadfast on the imperative of God being the cause of cosmological existence20.
This does not suggest there has always existed a refined cosmological argument. Modern philosophical arguments include innovative approaches not known to previous generations. However, it must be pointed out that this consistent view of a divine cause extends beyond the Christian faith as well.
As far back as the first known Pharoah of Egypt, King Narmer (3150 B.C.E.), divine causal belief was engrained in human consciousness21. Numerous other ancient cultures, who we refer to as ‘pagan’, all had ‘gods’ whom they believed created the cosmos. What seems new in the human experience, is the non-cohesive argument that, in fact, there was no divine cause, and the universe is self-generating.
This does not suggest that, necessarily, because humankind has always believed in an ‘invisible’ creator, that ‘consensus’ is the arbiter of reality. However, Swinburne and, to a point, the Kalam argument for the cosmological model, are simply extensions of a human belief system which stretches back to antiquity.
Swinburne is not a believer in the entire Kalam argument but there is something both have in common: cogent reasoning representing a theistic belief system. The philosophical differences while significant, does not lead to a conclusion of mutual nullification. I am not suggesting that this necessarily means they align ‘point by point’, rather, an aggregate of both align enough to produce theistic conclusions.
The satisfaction of human curiosity could be put forward as the entire purpose of human existence. After all, it is our curiosity which leads our species to ask questions both great and small.
Famous African American Atheist, and scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, made this point clear: “it is our curiosity which led a band of hunter-gatherers to the stars”. I admit to being fascinated by this brilliant scientist even though he is one of Theism’s greatest enemies.
His intellectual brilliance, combined with his effective oratory abilities are also a source of great frustration. Tyson’s blindness to his own scientific inconsistency is symptomatic of science’s the non-cohesive arguments in general.
There is near consensus that no one in the scientific community knows what caused the Big Bang. Further, it is only through claimed observational evidence that this theory, less than a century old, is believed.
Ontology applied to cosmological modeling provides the only satisfying conclusion to origins: pre-cause reason for a post-causal reality. Those who dispute divine cause readily admit not knowing what caused the universe. However, they also admit that ‘something’ served as casual. If not, how does the reality we inhabit exist?
In effect, and seemingly unawares, natural humanists and atheists are claiming ‘faith’ with this unprovable position. They are simply referring to it as something different. Faith, in this instance, cannot be viewed as pejorative to religion because no one would claim atheists, or even agnostics, have a religious view.
Nevertheless, if satisfactory explanation of existence is the end-in-mind, there seems nothing further from producing it than the belief that our beginnings resulted from a chaotic, un-directed chemical explosion.
If it stands to reason that any human seeks an answer to question of existence, provability should not be the ultimate measuring stick. The measuring stick must be what is most logically probable.
It is logic, next to faith, which is the cosmological argument’s strongest ally. It is more logical to state there is divine cause for creation, rather than offering some unknown cause.
Therefore, I reject any origination view not cohesive with cosmological modeling as illogical, not probable, unscientific (by science’s own definition), and non-sensical.
1 Percorino, P. PhD. (2002). Introduction to Philosophy. Premise Argument 1. Chapter 3; Philosophy of Religion. Retrieved from https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
2 Tavakol, R., Ellis, G. (1988). On the Question of Cosmological Modelling. Physics Letter A. Volume 130; Issues 4-5, pgs. 217-224. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037596018890597X
3 Robson, B. (2019). Redefining Standard Model Cosmology: Introductory Chapter. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/books/edition/Redefining_Standard_Model_Cosmology/
4 Wolf, Emil (NDG). Appendix E: Introduction to the Scientific Method. University of Rochester. Retrieved from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
5 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021). The Universe Just Is. 4.2 Objection 1. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#:~:text=The%20cosmological%20argument%20is%20part,nothing%20or%20than%20something%20else
6 Sienra, A. (2000). The Rationality of Theism. Richard Swinburne: Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. Pg. 109. Retrieved from www.googlebooks.com
7 [IBD] The Rationality of Theism.
8 Swinburne, R. (2017). A Reply to My Commentators. Vol. 53, Issue 3; 403-418. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1927565678?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=12085
9 [IBD] The Rationality of Theism
10 Craig, W. (1979). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Part 1: Historical Statements of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Retrieved from Google Books Link Here
11 [IBD]. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
12 [IBD] The Kalam Cosmological Argument
13 Copan, P., Craig, W., (2018). The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Scientific Evidence for the Beginning of the Universe. (2) Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Cosmological Argument for Theism. Retrieved from Google Books Link Here
14 Swinburne, R., (2016). The Coherence of Theism: Second Edition: Introduction. Retrieved from Google Books Link Here
15 Grinnin, L. (2019). Was There a Big Bang? Eurasian Center for Big History & System Forecasting, Oriental Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Vol. III, No.1 Retrieved from https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/JBH/article/view/2339/2266
16 Koonin EV. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biol Direct. 2007;2:21. Published 2007 Aug 20. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-21
17 Corner, D. (NDG). Miracles. University of California at Fresno. Section 4; Hume’s Argument. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/miracles/
18 [IBD] Miracles. Section 4: Hume’s Argument
19 Connolly, P., (2018). Susanna Newcome’s Cosmological Argument. Pgs. 842-859. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1080/09608788.2018.1494543
20 Book of Genesis. Chapter(s) 1&2. Holy Bible. King James Version. BibleGateway. Retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1%2C+2&version=KJV
21 Landvatter, T., (2017). Pharoah Triumphant. A look into Classics 375/History 395: Ancient Egyptian History and Civilization. Retrieved from https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/articles/2017/object-of-study-landvatter.html