Chapter 3 - Why Does Anything At All Exist?

Class Date: September 10, 2025

For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. (Romans 1:20, CSB)

Introduction

This chapter will be relatively "heavy" and you will probably need to read it slowly, stop periodically, and "digest" what you read.

Cosmological Arguments

Over the years, a number of cosmological arguments have been proposed for the existence of God. The cosmological arguments are a family of arguments that attempt to demonstrate the existence of God by showing there is an ultimate cause or explanation for the universe. It starts with observations about the world around us and reasons back to a first cause, which is identified as God.

Early defenders of the cosmological argument included Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, and more.

Three common cosmological arguments are the Thomastic Cosmological Argument proposed by Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz's Cosmological Argument, which will be covered in this chapter, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which will be covered in Chapter 4.

Leibniz's Cosmological Argument

Leibniz's Cosmological Argument, which is sometimes called the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, was developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), a German mathematician and philosopher.

Leibniz asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In other words, he wondered why anything at all exists.

And he stated, "nothing happens without a sufficient reason." This statement is now known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

The Premises

Leibniz's Cosmological Argument consists of the following premises:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

Premise 1

Premise 1 states, "Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."

Premise 1 is a version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This principle can be stated a variety of ways:
- Any existing thing must have an explanation of its existence.
- For any contingent entity, there is a sufficient explanation for why it exists.

In other words, there are no things that exist without an explanation.

Contingent versus Necessary Entities

What are contingent entities and necessary entities?

• Contingent entities are things that exist due to causal factors outside themselves. These are things that did not have to exist. For instance, physical objects such as people, planets, and chairs are contingent entities.
• Necessary entities are things that exist of their own nature. Sometimes the terminology is used that they "exist by necessity." They must exist and cannot fail to exist. Necessary entities do not depend on anything else to exist and they must exist is every possible situation - it's impossible to imagine a world where they do not exist. Examples would include numbers, sets of numbers or other mathematical objects.

From this principle of sufficient reason, one can argue that the universe cannot explain itself; rather, it is contingent.

But God explains the existence of the universe. But he, himself, does not require an explanation outside himself because he is eternal and self-existent.

Some people have misstated premise 1 and have asked, "What caused God?" Dr. Stephen Meyer answers this.

Premise 2

Premise 2 states, "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."

William Lane Craig states the following: Premise 2 “seems quite plausible in its own right, for the universe, by definition, includes all of physical reality. So the cause of the universe must (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence) transcend space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material.

But there are only two kinds of things that could fall under such a description: either an abstract object (like a number) or else a mind (a soul, a self). But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. This is part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, doesn’t cause anything. So if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind which created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by the word ‘God.’”- from Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (J. S. Feinberg & L. Goss, Eds.; Third Edition, p. 108). Crossway Books.

Atheists agree with Premise 2

In the section, "Atheists Agree with Premise 2," Dr. Craig makes an interesting observation. He points out that atheists typically assert the following in response to Premise 1:
- A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.
Dr. Craig then explains that this statement is logically equivalent to saying:
- B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

He then points out that a person can't say statement A above is true and at the same time say that statement B is false. And he also points out that statement B is virtually synonymous with premise 2. So, in other words, if an atheist says that there is no explanation for the universe, they are, in essence, admitting that premise 2 is true.

Let me explain. Suppose someone says "If P, then Q." For example, "If it rains (P), then the sidewalk will be wet (Q)."

In logic, the only acceptable statement that one can make in relation to this initial statement is "If not Q, then not P." "If the sidewalk is not wet, it did not rain."

All other relationships between P and Q are not logically acceptable. Let's look at the other possible relationships and see why they are not acceptable.

Statement: "If P, then not Q." Of course, this is not acceptable. It contradicts the statement, "If P, then Q." If it rains, the sidewalk will be wet.

Statement: "If not P, then Q." "If it doesn't rain, then the sidewalk will be wet." If it doesn't rain, the sidewalk might not be wet. Our statement is that "If it doesn't rain, the sidewalk is going to be wet." Obviously, the sidewalk might or might not end up being wet if it doesn't rain. If it doesn't rain, of course, the sidewalk might not be wet. But if it doesn't rain, the sidewalk might be wet (despite it not raining) because of a sprinkler nearby or someone washing their car near the sidewalk.

Statement: "If Q, then P." This is not necessarily true. Using our example, this is saying, "If the sidewalk is wet, it rained." This isn't necessarily true because there are other possible reasons why the sidewalk is wet. It might be wet because someone washed their car near the sidewalk, for instance.

Statement: "If not P, then not Q." Using our example, this is saying, "If it didn't rain, then the sidewalk will not be wet." Again, this isn't necessarily true. Suppose it didn't rain. Could the sidewalk be wet? Yes, because, as described in the previous example, it could be wet because someone washed their car or watered their lawn near the sidewalk.

Premise 3

The universe obviously exists.

Conclusions

Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

Going Further

Conversing with "Nothing in Particulars"

Although this chapter is about using the cosmological argument to support the existence of God and therefore is aimed at discussing the argument with atheists, the argument could also be used to help the “nothing in particulars” to see that Christianity is true. Although the cosmological argument allows one to come to the conclusion that there is a God, and therefore would be supported by any religion that believes in monotheism, such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, as well as deism, with the appropriate line of reasoning, the argument could be used to support the idea of a Christian God. The God who created the universe would be a timeless, all-powerful, personal being.

A Timeless and Spaceless God

A property of something that exists by necessity of its own nature is that it is eternal, with no beginning or end. This being would transcend both space and time. God exists outside of and beyond the physical dimensions and limits of our universe. He is not bound by the rules of space or the progression of time.

An Omnipotent God

A being that can produce a universe with billions of stars and galaxies, and our solar system with a planet with the precise laws of chemistry and physics that allows for the habitation of plants, animals, and humans must have been an all-powerful God. (We'll discuss this concept of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry of the universe in Chapter 5 - Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?)

A Personal God

It could be argued that the creator of a universe is a personal God because why would God create a universe with humans and not be personally interested in them. A personal God would reveal Himself, which he has done through creation (general revelation) and through the Bible and Jesus (special revelation). And this personal God would also be loving, which he demonstrated by sending his Son to die on the cross for our sins.

Digging Deeper

The following is a list of books, videos and online articles to consider for further reading and is not necessarily an endorsement.

• Video: Dr. Stephen Meyer talks about the Case for Intelligent Design - YouTube
• Apologetics 204: Leibniz’ Contingency Argument – Equip - A series of 14 lessons at Know Why You Believe - Equip
• Video Debate: Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing? - YouTube - The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is sometimes associated with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. In the following video, the Christian apologist, William Lane Craig debates that question with atheist, Lawrence Krauss.