Q&A: Clarification on the Cosmological Argument
Clarification on the Cosmological Argument
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The cosmological proof assumes that everything we have experience of has a cause that brought it about, and from there one arrives at the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe, but that He Himself has no cause because He is not something learned from experience.
But that assumption seems strange to me, because experience does not show that everything has a cause in the sense that something new is created; rather, it shows that matter changes its form. But with regard to the universe, it is the opposite. Its cause is not a change in matter, but creation of something that did not previously exist.
If so, it comes out that one cannot prove that God created the universe, but at most that He altered the form of matter that already existed. Does the Rabbi agree?
Answer
The principle of causality is not a result of experience. It is a priori. My claim is that it applies only to entities familiar to us, and not necessarily to others. Your question lies on the border between the cosmological argument and the physico-theological argument. Even if causality indicates that one thing comes from another, that chain has to begin somewhere. Beyond that, the complexity of the thing that was produced also requires an explanation.
Beyond that, even if you reach only the conclusion that He brought about a change in preexisting matter, that is still evidence of His existence.