The Vertical Cosmological Argument- From Contingent Existence to the Necessary Sustainer
SYBOK: “Consider the questions of existence: Who am I? Why am I here? Does God exist? These are the questions man has asked ever since he first gazed at the stars and dreamed. My Vulcan ancestors . . . believed in a place where these questions of existence would be answered. . . . My brothers, we have been chosen to undertake the greatest adventure of all time . . .”
(Star Trek V)

There is a less common argument based on the cause of creation which does not look backward through time. Instead it looks “up” – to the cause of existence itself. Norman Geisler refers to this as the vertical form of the argument from creation. The horizontal form, which we covered above, shows that if we look backward through time we will eventually come to the beginning of the universe which requires a cause. Now we will look “up” and consider the cause of contingent things existing right here and now.

First we need to understand two terms: contingent and necessary. A contingent thing is something that exists but does not have to exist. Contingent things must be caused to exist because if they do not have to exist they must have a reason for existing outside of themselves. A necessary thing must exist because that is its nature. The basic argument looks like this:

(1) Contingent things exist (e.g., the universe came into existence, and can go out of existence).
(2) Either contingent things are causing themselves to exist or they are being caused to exist by something else.
(3) Nothing can cause itself, therefore contingent things require other things to make them exist.
(4) There cannot be an infinite number of contingent things in the causal chain, therefore there must be a necessary thing holding contingent things in existence.

The argument becomes clearer when we grasp the difference between what something is and that something exists. When we define something we are telling what it is – but not that it actually exists. A thing can be defined that does not really exist – like the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. But just because we know what something is, that does not mean it actually exists. If we did not know what something was, we could never know if it actually existed. So “what something is” and “that something is” must really be two different things. If this is true, then just because something has a definition does not mean that it exists (at least outside our imagination). To look at the same truth another way, if all triangles ceased to exist that fact would not change the definition of a triangle.

What all this means is that for something to exist it must be made to exist – it doesn’t exist just because someone defines it. Imagine if I was defining the Easter Bunny. I might say, “The Easter Bunny is a magical rabbit that hops around on Easter morning and hides eggs for children to find.” Because you know something about reality you would probably guess that this creature does not exist. You might say, “Oh, you made that up – a creature like that cannot exist.” But suppose I then said, “OK then, how about this: The Easter Bunny is a magical rabbit that hops around on Easter morning and hides eggs for children to find, and he actually exists.” Would my addition of “and he actually exists” at the end of the definition change anything? Of course not. We cannot simply define something into existence.
Adding “and it exists” to any thing’s definition does not make it the case that the thing actually exists any more than adding “and it exists” to the definition of the Easter Bunny would mean that the Easter Bunny really existed.

If existence was part of a thing’s definition then it would have to exist by necessity – otherwise it would not be what it was. Thus, for all unnecessary things there is a difference between “what it is” and “that it is.” And that means that if it exists, something else is making it exist. Since this is true of everything in the universe something outside the universe is required to make it exist right now. This thing cannot be getting its existence from something else or we would be right back where we started from – with things that need something else to make them exist. Therefore, the existence of things that do not exist of necessity shows that there must be something that does exist of necessity – something that has never not-existed, nor can ever stop existing.

Further, this thing would have to have existence as its very nature. That is, necessary existence cannot have been given to a nature for that would make the thing contingent on whatever gave it its existence. To have existence as a thing’s nature means that existence is what it is. What this means is that this existence is unlimited, because a thing’s nature is what limits its existence. For example, a man’s being is limited to his “man-ness.” His existence does not extend to anything not in the nature of man (he is not also a horse or a tree or a rock). But if a thing is existence itself, then it has no limiting nature. It is infinite existence. That thing, we believe, is God.

Coffee Shop Talk

After the philosophy circle meeting Renee had asked if Mike would be interested in going out with Nita again sometime. “Sure,” he had said, “although I don’t know if it would do any good.” “Well,” Renee had answered, “how about a double date with you two and Bert, my friend from physics class?” Mike thought that perhaps a more casual setting would be better and that a group would help if he and Nita ran into conversation issues again. As it turned out, one of the campus groups Bert belonged to was hosting a movie night. Renee suggested that they begin there and follow up with some free coffee at the café afterward. Never one to say no to free coffee, Mike made the call. Nita agreed, and they all met up in Bert’s dorm.

Bert was a Physics major and he and his colleagues liked to unwind at the end of the school week with a movie. They enjoyed science fiction and other science related films because it was fun to pick them apart after viewing. As Mike, Nita, and Renee entered they overheard someone loudly complaining that “You can’t hear explosions in space, and ships can’t fly like that!” The rebuke to this critic was immediate and decisive, “Star Wars still rules so shut up!” “I concede the point,” was the only response. Laughter followed.

“Guys, this is Bert,” announced Renee. He had been the one to rebuke the Star Wars critic. “Good to meet you, I hear you’re Christians.” “Bert!” exclaimed Renee. “It’s OK,” said Mike, looking back at Bert, “guilty as charged!”

Bert smiled and said, “Look, you can believe whatever you want but we’re scientists here and the movie tonight is definitely in favour of rationality and knowledge – I hope you won’t be offended.”

Mike looked over at Nita who was wincing, and answered that “Our only concern is that it is accurate in its portrayal of scientific fact.” Bert smiled widely at this.

The movie was Contact, a film written by the late atheist-astronomer Carl Sagan. The film was nearly as bad as Mike or Nita expected. There were some jabs at religion, and Christianity was not very well represented by the religious character, but there were some points made on both sides and in the end the hard scientist hero became somewhat softened by her experiences beyond the lab. When the movie ended they headed over to the café where Renee got them all complimentary drinks.

“What did you think of the movie, Mike?” Bert asked when they were all seated.

“Great story,” he began although he knew Nita was less than pleases with it. “But I think that Christianity was not given a fair shot.” Groans followed but Bert seemed genuinely interested when he asked, “How so?”

“Well,” Mike began, “the Christian character was immoral and too much of a fideist.” He threw in this last term to sound a bit more sophisticated, something he assumed the scientists there would appreciate. He wondered if they would take out their pens and begin writing down notes. “A fideist is someone who thinks faith is irrational or unprovable – that you should just believe despite any evidence.”

“I thought that’s just what faith was!” groused one of the science students. “I put my faith in facts!” This was greeted with murmurs of assent. “Me too,” replied Mike and took a long sip on his coffee. Surprised stares greeted him so he continued. “Belief in God can be inherited from parents or assumed, but I think there are good arguments for God’s existence that do not rely on mere hopes.” “Like what?” the first student asked.

“Well, you all agree that the universe has not always existed right?” Mike asked. Nods all around. “OK,” he continued, “then what caused it to come into existence?” “Nothing!” blurted one of the freshmen. “So it’s more scientific to think the universe came into being by nothing than by something? Where else in science are there effects without causes?” Mike responded.

“Nothing cannot cause something,” Bert said. “But here’s your problem: you’re going to say God caused the universe, so what caused God?” “Nothing caused God,” Mike answered, and before the freshman could object he added, “God is uncaused. He simply exists.”

“You can’t just say ‘the universe needs a cause so my God exists,’” said Bert, “why couldn’t it be two gods, or the Muslim God?”

“Well, at this point I am only arguing that God exists – not which religion’s God is the right one. That has to be decided on other grounds – such as whose religion was affirmed by verifiable supernatural acts – such as Jesus’ resurrection which the Bible says proved that He was God in the flesh and had died for the sins of any who will put their trust in Him, but I digress. Your issue seems to be whether or not God exists at all.”

Bert nodded and said, “Fair enough. All you have said sounds very nice, Mike, but I don’t have enough faith to trust in some old man up in heaven that made everything. You’ll have to do some major convincing to get me to believe – and leave religion out of it!”

“You have every right to demand evidence,” Mike answered. “Christianity does not ask for blind faith. So, besides religion, what would you suggest as a means of inquiry?”

“Well, scientific proof would be nice,” Bert said. This was followed by nods all around the room. Renee had perked up and suddenly Nita joined in. “Science cannot say anything about God. Science studies only the physical world. God is not physical.”

“That’s right, Nita. It’s not fair to ask for proof from a method that cannot possibly supply it,” Mike said. “Bert, remember in Contact when Joss asked Ellie if she loved her dad and then asked her to prove it? She couldn’t, at least not in the way she demanded that Joss prove God, because love is not an object of science. God isn’t either. Asking science to provide proof for God is like asking biology to explain why a car won’t run.” There was laughter at this.
“Well what, besides religion, can say anything about God then?” asked Bert.

“Before science became so narrow as to only study physical things,” Mike replied, “it was called philosophy. Philosophy is an acceptable method for investigating God, for it studies all of reality.”

“OK, so what does philosophy have to say about God?” Bert asked.
“Well, let’s start with a premise that everyone can agree upon: Things exist.”
“That’s a pretty safe starting point!” Bert laughed. “OK, so things exist. So what?”

“Let’s begin with only one of those things – like a triangle. What is the definition of a triangle?”
“How about “a three sided, two dimensional figure”?
“Sounds good,” Mike responded. “Now, suppose I went through the universe and somehow destroyed all the triangles. How would that affect the definition of triangles?”
“It wouldn’t,” Bert said. ”Triangles would still have the same definition. In fact if they didn’t we wouldn’t know what one was if we saw it.”

“Very good,” answered Mike. “So what does that tell us about the existence of triangles?”
Bert caught on quickly. “That something doesn’t have to exist in order to be a triangle?”
“Excellent!” Mike said. “You’re well on your way to belief in God!” Everyone laughed.
Mike grinned. “I think you skipped a step or two,” Bert said wryly.

“Fair enough,” Mike replied, “let’s move on. So far we have discovered that triangles do not have to exist. That means they are not necessary. In philosophical terms, necessary means something that necessarily exists. It cannot come into, nor go out of, existence. Are triangles like this?” “No,” Bert answered. “Triangles are not necessary because they can exist or not.”
“Exactly,” Mike stated, “and it reveals something about the triangle’s definition.”

“I thought we already defined what a triangle is,” Bert said looking suspicious.
“Yes,” Mike said, ”and what did we say in this definition regarding existence?”
“We didn’t say anything about it in our definition.”
“And why not?
“Because existence is not part of its definition.”

“Correct again,” Mike said. Bert was following along very well so he pressed forward. “What would happen if existence were part of a triangle’s definition?”
“Then . . . triangles would have to exist,” Bert guessed.
“Very good,” Mike affirmed. “So you see then that we cannot simply define something into existence. For example, I could not define a unicorn as ‘a horse with a magic horn in its forehead that exists.’”
“Right,” Bert agreed, “because then unicorns would just pop into existence.”

“You’ve got it,” Mike answered. “Now let’s go back to triangles. Suppose that all triangles were in fact destroyed, could one come into existence?”
“Sure, I could draw one,” Bert said.
“And what would drawing a triangle do to its definition?” asked Mike.
“Nothing,” Bert answered. “There would just be one.”
“You mean that what a triangle is would not change?” Mike asked to clarify what was being said.
“Yes.”
“So what does that tell us about the actual existence of triangles?”
“That they must be caused to exist.”

“Very good,” Mike stated. “OK, let’s sum up what we have so far: Unnecessary things (like triangles) exist, but they do not have to exist. Therefore what something is and whether or not that thing exists is not the same thing.”

“Is that all we’ve got so far?” Bert moaned in mock exasperation. “Took us long enough!”
“I am just making sure we don’t miss anything,” laughed Mike. “Now, you said a minute ago that if all triangles went out of existence that you could cause one to exist.”
“Yes, I could draw one.”

“But what would be ‘drawing’ you?” There was a moment of silence in the room. Renee was looking at Bert and Nita was looking at Mike. Both girls were following the analogy and wondered if Bert would get it before Mike had to explain. “What I mean is this,” Mike stated. “While you are giving existence to the triangle, what is giving existence to you?”

“What do you mean?” asked Bert. “Nothing is, I already exist.”
“Yes, you do exist. But do you exist necessarily?” Mike asked.
“You mean is existence part of my definition? Well, I guess not.”
“You don’t have to guess! Have you always existed?” Mike pressed.
“No.” Bert responded.”
“Could you cease to exist?”
“Yes.”
“Then is existence part of your definition?”
“No.”
“And therefore . . . ?”

“Something else is ‘drawing” me?’” Bert said with a sinking feeling as he caught on to where Mike was going with all this. Before Mike could continue he raised an objection. “Hold on there professor. I exist because my parents made me, and their parents made them, and so forth all the way back to . . .” Bert’s eyes looked past Mike for a moment as he mentally calculated the outcome of this line of reasoning. “Oh,” he concluded, “that won’t really help will it? I can’t just have an endless string of things that cause each other.”

“Right,” Mike agreed, “but even worse is the fact that your parents are not the primary cause of your existence anyway.”
“They’re not?”
“If your parents ceased to exist would you?” Mike asked.
“Not necessarily,” Bert said thoughtfully.
“So your parents . . . ?” Mike began.
“OK, I got it. They can’t be causing my existence because then I’d go out with them.”

“And that’s not even the biggest problem,” Mike said. Bert sighed and leaned back in his chair looking around for help. The rest of the students glanced around casually, not wishing to indict themselves by lending him aid. Mike continued. “Is existence part of your parents’ definition? Or their parents’? Or whatever slime you think your ancient ancestors were made of?” Mike said this last part with a grin but he knew he would raise some hackles.
“Hey, that’s not nice,” Renee complained. Mike grinned, “Hey, it’s not my theory.”

“OK, OK” Bert interjected, “so you’re saying that all people are not necessary, they must be being caused by something else then. But if the universe is all there is, and it began with the Big Bang, then everything came into existence at once. And scientists say that someday there will be a Big Crunch and everything will be destroyed. So according to you – nothing would be necessary!”

Mike waited a moment, then said, “Do you see a problem with that conclusion?”
Bert thought about it. “Well, if things exist that don’t have to then something else has to give them existence. If everything in the universe doesn’t have to exist then something else has to exist that exists necessarily” realizing that this meant that there had to be a necessary cause outside of the universe he tried another tack. “Wait, what if everything just gives everything else existence?”

“You mean like A gives existence to B which gives existence to C and so forth?” Mike asked.
“Yes,” Bert agreed, then shook his head. “That’s like your slime question earlier. It can’t just go on forever – you still need something to cause A. So what if Z causes A? Then everything is accounted for!”

“Not everything,” Mike answered.
“Why not?” Bert replied, “it would be a perfect circle of existence-giving.”
“But what caused the circle?” Mike prodded.
“Darn it!” Bert said. “You’re good at this. Wait, why couldn’t it cause itself?”
“Nothing can cause itself – that’s a contradiction,” Mike explained. “In order for something to cause itself to exist it would already have to exist in order to cause.”

“OK, OK. I see where you’re trying to go with this. If the whole universe is made up of things that exist but don’t have to exist, then something else has to give the whole universe its existence. I suppose you’re going to say God did it,” Bert said sarcastically.

“Interesting supposition, but you brought it up – not me,” Mike reminded him. “We agreed not to discuss religion though, so let’s stick to philosophy for now and just see where we are. If there has to be some thing causing all other things to exist what sort of a being would that be?”

“An old man with a beard up in heaven?” Bert asked, eliciting laughter from a few of the students. Mike rolled his eyes in good humor then waited for Bert to give a better answer. “OK,” Bert began, “well it couldn’t be just another unnecessary being because that would just push the question back another step. So it would be . . . necessary. This thing is starting to sound familiar.”
“It should,” Mike said, smiling.
“And it just happens to be the God the Bible talks about,” said Bert teasingly. “What do you know? What a shock!”

“I haven’t said God or Bible once in this discussion,” Mike reminded him. “But since you insist on bringing up religion in a purely philosophical discussion, I will allow it. You know, the apostle Paul said that God’s invisible attributes were made obvious to all people through His creation. Perhaps this is what he was referring to.”
“And I suppose Paul came up with this argument too?” asked Bert.
“Actually Aristotle came pretty close about 400 years earlier,” Mike reflected, “although he did not have a Bible to compare to his god.”
“Well, just because this argument sounds good that doesn’t mean I have to believe in God,” concluded Bert a little too joyfully.
“Yes,” Mike said looking him in the eye. “Unfortunately Paul said that too.”

Tension was starting to rise in the room when Renee broke it by saying, “OK, enough philosophizing for one night, my head hurts!” Everyone laughed in agreement and started cleaning up after themselves to save Renee some work.

On the way out Nita said, “Mike, I was really proud of you tonight. I never could have done that – stood up to a bunch of science geeks I mean. Where did you learn all that?
“Actually it was in an Introduction to Philosophy class – Thomas Aquinas took Aristotle’s arguments and applied them to the God of the Bible. Turned out they were basically one and the same, Aristotle just didn’t have the advantage of the Bible to make the connection.”

“So you don’t just watch movies all day, huh?” Nita joked.
“No,” Mike answered her, “sometimes I watch TV.”
She hit him in the arm, and it was the best feeling he’d had in days.

*Note: These are supplemental writings to The Message Behind the Movie, and are not necessarily endorsed by Moody Publishers.