Q&A: The Cosmological Proof
The Cosmological Proof
Question
Hello Rabbi, in your book "God Plays with Dice" you discussed Aquinas's cosmological proof and presented Dawkins's criticism of Aquinas's supposedly unnecessary use of the concept of God. Dawkins argues that the use of God is a kind of "artificial stopping point," and that one could instead claim that the first cause is, for example, the Big Bang (and then there is no need to invent God for this purpose).
You argued in response to Dawkins that the use of God is because His definition does not raise the need for the question of His cause (since by definition He is without a cause). The problem is that even if I define God as the first cause, that still does not exempt me from the question: why is that so? So I did not understand how this argument you raised helps against Dawkins's claim.
Answer
I don’t understand the question. I argue that the cosmological argument proves that there must be one cause in the causal chain that itself does not require a cause, otherwise you end up with an infinite regress. The Big Bang is not such a thing. That’s all.
Discussion on Answer
That has already been explained here, and in greater detail in "The First Existent," second discussion.
There are two alternatives: 1. Infinite regress. 2. A finite regress beginning with an entity that does not require a cause. Since 1 is nonsense and impossible, we are left with 2. For details, see there.
Why is the Big Bang not such a thing?
The question is why God is such a thing. Why does He not require a cause?