Summary My argument for something corresponding to 'God' or 'Divinity' is an ancient one: it is the source or cause of all that exists, i.e. of the 'universe'. This is called the Cosmological Argument. However, the argument comes in different forms, not all of which are valid. In my opinion, there are some common misconceptions, which I will try to clear up here, especially regarding the word cause. Also, on this page, the 'Divine' is no more than this source; any further qualifications will be dealt with later.
At this stage of the argument, we assume that the 'universe' is other than its Divine Source, since it usually seems that way from the point of view of common sense. So far, the Divine is invoked as the source of the apparently non-divine universe, including all conscious beings such as us. Whether this Divine Source is indeed distinct from the supposedly non-divine reality is another question altogether. Also, there is an implicit assumption that the Divine is the source of its own reality, which leads to some rather subtle questions regarding the meaning of such a statement.Now I just argued in Consciousness is All that only consciousness exists and that there is no 'matter' or 'material substance'. Therefore, all discussion of (non-divine) 'existence' in the following refers to the existence (i.e. manifestation) of some form of consciousness (thoughts, feelings or perceptions). In other words, the 'universe' is, for now, no more than the totality of all conscious minds such as our own. Only later will I argue, with some hesitation, that the separation that I now implicitly assume between the Divine and the universe is illusory (see Consciousness is Divine).
So by non-divine existence, I mean all minds such as our own. Nevertheless, my conviction regarding the need for a 'source' would remain true even if such a thing as matter were shown to exist after all. Hence the argument is formulated in terms of the more general notion of existence rather than just in terms of consciousness.
Stated briefly, I find it impossible to believe that existence simply 'happens'. This truth seems self-evident to my intuition. Any kind of existence seems like a miracle to me, one that cries out for a 'reason' or 'cause' that can only be of a divine nature (in some sense of the word 'divine'). This is a primordial religious and metaphysical insight. Any human may have it; one need not be a philosopher.
In philosophy, it is customary to reject any appeal to intuition (the immediate apprehension of some truth). The presumed purpose of philosophy is to find some kind of logical argument to justify our beliefs. However, I believe, based on my own introspection, that the mind can apprehend some profound spiritual truths in a direct manner that does not require argument. This must be done very carefully, and with deep reflection, but it can be done. The necessity for an uncaused (and hence divine) source of existence is one such case. I believe that people who disagree simply have not had this intuition, at least not in a pure form where the truth is manifest. Often this intuition is blocked by intellectual prejudice, confusion and the deceiving power of words and habitual modes of thought. Therefore, we need to clarify what is being claimed rather than to argue for it. I will attempt this in the discussion following this summary.
A common source of misunderstanding is the meaning of the word 'cause'. The Source is a special kind of cause, not to be confused with the causation studied by science. Science studies sequences of observed phenomena and dignifies regularly observed sequences with the name of cause. If event B always follows event A, then we say that A causes B. That is all, as far as science is concerned.
However, the Source is an entirely different kind of causation. It must be present at all times to sustain the existence of anything whatsoever. It is as much of a miracle for something to continue to exist as for it to be created in the first place. Nothing that is distinct from the Source can possibly sustain its own existence, not even for an instant. Therefore, the reason presented here for the Source is not quite the same as the answer to the question 'What happened before the Big Bang?' It is considerably more general, since it is a misconception to think that once something is 'created' it can then sustain its own existence.
The illusion that any created 'thing' might be capable of sustaining its own existence is intimately related to the illusion that there is an external material world of discrete objects. This notion was refuted in Consciousness is All. The fact that a rock feels 'hard' and 'solid' and has a presence (to perception) that persists in time fools us into thinking that it has some kind of inherent ability to sustain its own existence. This impression is reinforced by the illusion that the rock is a material object existing separately from our mind and from other material objects. But the feelings of hardness and solidity are just perceptions, and an enduring perception is still just a perception. The rock has no more intrinsic solidity than foam or bubbles. (By 'intrinsic' solidity, I mean the notion of an inherent and self-sustaining existence that our mind attributes to the rock based on the perception of its hardness and durability. This presumed attribute is only a feeling or impression that we have in our mind regarding the nature of the rock, an impression produced by the deceiving power of the perception of its qualities.)Since consciousness — the true fabric of the universe — is not mistakenly thought of in the same way as a rock, it is perhaps easier to believe that consciousness is incapable of sustaining its own existence. At least this seems true of any consciousness conceived of as distinct from the Source. We think of consciousness as something floating, evanescent and ethereal, and indeed it is. (How curious that we ever failed to realize that the qualities of the rock were contained within consciousness!)
But as suggested above, I think that it is probably a mistake to conceive of any consciousness as distinct from the Source in the first place. Now if it is not distinct from the Source, and if we are convinced of this, then we surely do not need to argue for the existence of the Source. However, most of us do not realize this immediately, so we must start by supposing that our consciousness is separate from the Source. When I contemplate this view of consciousness with a calm and open mind, it seems clear to me that this miracle called consciousness could not simply occur 'by itself'.
This is neither an emotional response nor wishful thinking. The conviction grows as my mind becomes increasingly calm and empty of all intellectual preconceptions, while yet remaining alert and intelligent. The only thing that is required is a sensitivity to the miracle of consciousness (or existence). I am convinced that this conviction is not a delusion. Rather, failure to experience this intuition seems like a form of spiritual blindness to me. Call me dogmatic, if you wish, but this is how I see it. At least I am not burdening you with a convoluted argument based on word games and pseudo-logic, as some philosophers would enjoy doing! (Try Hegel.)
OBJECTION 1: No Reason Provided
Your argument is worthless. It is a non-argument. You have provided no reason whatsoever for why we should believe that the world requires an ultimate reason or source for its existence other than the world itself. Why can things not simply exist? There is nothing inconsistent or incredible in this notion. Your so-called intuition is nothing but a personal feeling that has no validity whatsoever as an argument.
Reply
It is essential to appreciate the miraculous nature of existence. A dull or prosaic mind will not be sensitive to this. Yet it is not just a feeling or illusion but an insight into the truth. Even an extremely intelligent (and presumably sober) scientist like Einstein felt deeply the mystery of nature but apparently failed to draw the correct metaphysical conclusion regarding the existence of a truly Divine Source — 'divine' in the sense of uncreated and the source of its own existence. (He seems to have believed in a mere 'order' or 'harmony' to nature, which falls short of appreciating the miracle of existence.)
Now you may or may not have the feeling that existence is a miracle. Let us assume that you are capable of such a feeling when in the right mood but that your skeptical mind is intent on dismissing it as a 'mere feeling' devoid of truth or 'objective reality'. In other words, it may be an inspiring feeling, but it says nothing verifiable about reality, or so you believe. Why should you believe that this feeling has any truth to it?
In fact, I agree that the mere feeling itself, however inspiring, says nothing about reality. It is the idea behind the feeling that I believe to be correct. It is possible to 'cold-bloodedly' realize that existence cannot simply happen. How could it possibly happen 'all by itself'? Yet I confess that it is difficult to do much more than assert this conviction, this intuition. There are no 'parts' to the idea that need to be elucidated. There is no logical structure to be dissected. What more can be said? You either 'get it' or you don't.
To tell the truth, I can perfectly understand the mind or outlook that says that things simply are and that is all. I can easily switch between that view and the one that believes that existence is a miracle. So why do I choose the latter as the truth?
For one thing, I believe that the more inspired view (that existence is a miracle) contains the less inspired view (that things simply are) but adds something to it. It is not a question of having to choose between two mutually exclusive propositions. Those with the more 'sober' view are not so much wrong as limited in their thinking (or rather intuition). Let us examine these sober, prosaic people for a moment.
They arbitrarily (and usually unconsciously) assume that the 'truth' consists of the mere description of reality, i.e. of the phenomena that pass before (or across) consciousness. This is the scientific point of view. It has also traditionally been the materialistic point of view, though it need not be. However, we have by now left materialism far behind, so let us take subjective idealism (the notion that the world is consciousness) for granted and consider why we should not just leave it there and say that conscious phenomena occur and that is all. Why does consciousness need a divine source?
Because it couldn't simply happen by itself. This is getting tedious, isn't it? Shall I leave it there? Will you promise to at least contemplate and meditate on this idea from time to time? Don't worry, you won't get bewitched by any philosophical sorcery. And then again, maybe you will, and maybe that is a good thing.
But seriously, what more can we say? Well, for one thing, when the view that 'existence couldn't simply happen by itself' occurs clearly in your mind, it can be not just convincing but overwhelming. You say, 'Of course! Of course! How could I ever not have realized this?' Agnostics often feel that those who believe do so only barely, that they are clutching at straws in their thoughts or feelings, in a desperate attempt to seek solace from the fear of death or from the apparent meaninglessness of life. In many cases this may be true. But it is important to realize that metaphysical intuitions can also occur to people who are calm, cool, collected and intelligent. At least grant them that.
By the way, notice how utterly powerless science is to really explain anything. Now I have no antipathy to science. Indeed, I am very interested in it, and I understand physics at a first or second year graduate level (Relativity and Feynman diagrams and other fun stuff). This is enough for a philosopher. And what have I learned from this? That science can only describe the world (i.e. the phenomena that pass before consciousness). Even if we grant science its customary materialist bias, it is still incapable of explaining the most basic questions, namely, why does the world exist and why does it behave as it does? It postulates mass (i.e. matter) and energy (which are in some sense the same), observes the regular transformations of this mass and energy, and elegantly encapsulates these observed regularities in the laws of physics. (Even the definitions of mass and energy are given in terms of mere description, i.e. in terms of an experimental prescription for their measurement.) In no way does it explain what the mass and energy actually are, where they 'come' from, nor why they obey the laws of physics. Some physicists honestly admit that their discipline is incapable of such an explanation, while others, with a bit more hubris, claim that such questions are 'invalid' in the first place. Now that is what I call dogmatic superstition!
Perhaps you think the words 'Existence could not happen by itself' betray a certain logical weakness. It may seem that the words by itself are inapplicable to existence as a whole. They make existence out to be like some kind of personal entity exerting effort and striving for a goal. Well, then just substitute the words 'Existence could not simply happen'. Note that this is not the same as the words 'Existence could not happen', since existence obviously does happen. The point is that existence could not simply happen by itself. Are we getting anywhere? Have you had enough?
One virtue of this argument is that it appears invulnerable to almost any conceivable counter-argument (other than outright rejection as a non-argument). For example, its focus on so general a notion as existence — perhaps the most general notion conceivable — renders it indifferent to the kind of existence in which you happen to believe. It does not matter whether reality is actually mind or matter or something else. Also, its sheer simplicity protects it from logical scrutiny. What is there to dissect? No new discovery in science can affect it. It soars high above the particulars of any view of the world. It encompasses any conceivable view of the world.
OBJECTION 2: What caused the Source?
If the Source exists because the universe needs a 'cause', then why shouldn't the Source need a cause? What is the cause of the Source? And what would be the cause of the cause of the Source? And so on ad infinitum? Clearly the argument according to causation is not even consistent, let alone credible.
Reply
Something that was implicit in my argument should now be made explicit. The Source is not only the cause of existence, but it is also the uncaused cause of existence. This was implicit in the statement that any existence is a 'miracle' and that the 'cause' or 'source' of this existence must therefore be of a divine nature. One aspect of this divine nature is that it is the source of its own existence, in a way that is incomprehensible to us now and that may well remain forever unfathomable to any mind other than that of the Source. (I will discuss later why this Source should also be conscious.)
To recapitulate, the essential intuition presented above is that no kind of being other than the Source is capable of sustaining its own existence. Only the Source can be the sustenance of its own existence. This may perhaps be taken as the most essential of all of its attributes. It can even be considered the essential feature of its definition.
However, the use of the word 'definition' is dangerous in that it suggests that we are creating Divinity out of mere words, which is emphatically not the case. This is reminiscent of the famous Ontological Argument, which seems to 'create' God from his definition. We will discuss the Ontological Argument later, but for now notice that our 'definition' of the Source as the only possible 'self-created being' was arrived at through intuition and not pulled out of thin air. Some would say that the intuition itself is pulled out of the air, but I simply disagree, and that is about as far as I can go, as discussed above. If my intuition works for me, then it works for me, and my hope is that by opening your mind to this intuition, you too may be convinced.
So the utter inability of any non-divine being to sustain its own existence logically implies the existence of the self-created Source that can sustain all existence. These are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.
Therefore it is an empty and mechanical use of conceptual formalism to say that the Source must also have a cause. Words are created to express thoughts and intuitions; thoughts and intuitions must not be slaves to words. It is an unthinking use of verbal formalism to read my argument as saying that 'everything must have a cause other than itself' and that this implies that the Source too must have a cause other than itself. Rather, my meaning was that everything other than the Source must have a cause other than itself. I did not jump to the general principle that absolutely everything must have a cause other than itself. Yet many misunderstand the Cosmological Argument (even my form of it) in just this way. It is good to have principles, but they should never be used reflexively, but rather only to express ideas arrived at in a legitimate way, either through observation, through logic or through valid intuition.
Perhaps the (erroneous) idea that the Source too must have a cause arises due to confusion between the two kinds of causation mentioned previously. As we saw, the scientific notion of cause is of an Event B always following an Event A. Repeated observation of such a sequence of events leads us to suppose that this must always happen, and in the material (or rather perceptual) world this hypothesis is validated often enough to be useful. However, as we also saw, the 'source' or 'causation' of the world is different: it is a continuous and ongoing sustenance, which is simultaneous to all events (i.e. to all perceived phenomena).
Now in the perceptual world studied by physics, it seems that some characteristic event always precedes any given event, at least until we enter the realm of quantum mechanics. Classical nature does indeed appear to be deterministic. Therefore, it may be that the experience of determinism and of an unceasing chain of causes in the perceptual realm induces some to think that any kind of causation must be of this nature. To this way of thinking, the idea of a cause always presupposes some preceding cause, and so a cause without a cause seems impossible.
By the way, I see no reason for believing that any kind of 'sequential' (or what we have called 'scientific') cause is necessary. Anything could happen at any time in the perceptual world, except perhaps a logical contradiction such as a square circle. Just because the sun has risen every day since the birth of the earth is no guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. Tomorrow's sunrise may be highly likely, but it is not certain. Also, the laws of physics could change at any time, although this too is unlikely. Finally, I see no reason why every perceived event (or phenomenon) need be preceded by another characteristic event (its cause), nor indeed by any event. For example, there may be no 'event' preceding the big bang, and in that case the big bang is 'uncaused', from a scientific point of view. (To be honest, I do not believe that the big bang or any other event really exists unless someone perceives it, but that is a controversial implication of subjective idealism that is only tangential to the present discussion.)
So the notion that every cause must have a cause is only a habit of thinking that arises from familiarity with nature. There is nothing illogical about the idea of an uncaused cause (namely the Divine Source). On the contrary, it is, in my opinion, quite 'logical' to suppose that the very same insight which demands that all non-divine existence requires some sustaining cause also requires that the ultimate sustaining cause be the source of its own existence. At some point the chain of sustenance must end, and I can think of no reason to have any intermediary sustaining causes between the ultimate uncaused cause (the Source) and the existence that is manifested to us in our consciousness. And even if such an intermediate ladder of sustaining causation were to exist, it is irrelevant to the argument for the Source, which focuses on the ultimate uncaused cause.