Q&A: The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
Question
To Rabbi Michael Abraham,
Greetings,
Thank you very much for the wonderful books in general, and for the trilogy in particular, which for me are like cold water to a weary soul. “They shall still bring forth fruit…”
It is stated in the holy book The First Existent (pp. 193–194) that the cosmological argument does not prove the cause of the universe but rather its emanator, and the necessity for this (p. 189) is the question of the collective of the universe: if it is not merely quantitative but also qualitative, then perhaps it does not require a cause or rationale, and it itself is only like a soul in a body—that is, not a cause but an emanator.
I’m not clear on the move from searching for a cause to finding emanation. If the particulars within the universe do require a cause, is the solution of emanation a substitute for that? And if emanation is a kind of cause, then what is the significance of the shift from God as cause to God as emanator?
I also still don’t understand: what is the basis for assuming that the collective of the universe is something real beyond the sum total of the particulars?
I would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response. We are your students, and we drink from your waters!
Answer
What you quoted is one possibility among several. One can view God as an efficient cause or as an emanator. These are two formulations of the cosmological argument (depending on how you relate to the various objections discussed there). As I understand it, He is both the cause of the world and its emanator. These are two proofs: from the very fact that the world exists, and from the fact that it is an organic entity.
From this you can also understand that there is not necessarily any reason to assume that the world is organic; rather, someone who does assume that can arrive at God by way of an argument from emanation.