sophiaserpentia | on the cosmological argument for the existence of God (Reply)

The "cosmological argument" for God's existence is rooted in the idea that, since all things that happen must have a cause, there must have been at the beginning of the causal chain a "prime mover," the "first uncaused cause" -- and that that uncaused cause must be God. Alternately, one could argue that every thing that exists is contingent on something external to explain its origin -- and that the universe itself, having nothing material external to it to which it might be contingent, is contingent upon God.

I've been rereading God and the New Physics by Paul Davies, where on p. 47 he raises this point:

Suppose we enlarge the definition of 'universe' to include God. What, then, is the explanation for the total system of God plus the physical universe of space, time, and matter? In short, what explains God? The theologian answers: 'God is a necessary being, without need of explanation; God contains within himself the explanation of his own existence.' But does this mean anything? And if it does, why can't we use the same argument to explain the universe: the universe is necessary, it contains within itself the reason for its own existence?

Indeed. Any thoughts on why we should give the unobserved divine presence the privilege of being logically necessary, over the much-observed universe?

crossposting to my journal and crossposting to