Where does this cosmological argument for the existence of God fail?

Question

I worked hard on this so please be honest.

I have to put it in details cause it is a little long, so hang on.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT argues from contingent effects to the existence of the first cause, or the creator God. The argument may begin from self-consciousness or the existence of the physical universe. Everything that has a beginning is an effect, and thus must have a cause. The universe must then have a cause if it has a beginning. The universe indeed has a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause. An infinite regression of causes is impossible; therefore, there must be a first cause that has no beginning, but that is necessary and eternal. This being we acknowledge to be God. We will now discuss the premises.

Begin by affirming self-consciousness or the existence of the universe. It is self-refuting to doubt one's own existence, since one must first exist before he can deny his own existence. One who does not exist cannot affirm the proposition, "I do not exist." Also, a person who denies his own existence withdraws from the debate, and therefore poses no threat to the cosmological argument. Once the proposition, "I exist" or "The universe exists," the argument can begin.

Uncaused contingent beings and events are impossible, since something cannot come out of nothing. Since nothing is not something, it cannot produce anything. Only a being that has no beginning can be uncaused. Neither is it possible for there to be self-caused beings and events. A cause must precede an effect at least logically, if not chronologically. Thus the cause exists before its effect. If a being or event already exists, then it does not cause its own existence, since it already exists. This being or event must then either be uncaused, or produced by a prior cause.

Although an infinite progression of causes is possible, an infinite regression of causes is not. An infinite progression can occur since causes can continue to lead to new effects, and it is logically possible that this process will never end. However, if we were to assume an infinite regression of causes, then it is impossible for us to have reached the present, since it is impossible to travel across an actual infinite.

Just as it is impossible to reach the end of an infinite progression, our present is an "end" as seen from the past. Any particular moment is an "end" or stopping point as seen from the past, so that if the past is infinite, we could never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite.
For example, if one were to begin counting at noon on Monday and decide that he would stop at noon on Friday, he would reach the stopping point when the time arrives. But if there is infinite time between his starting point and his stopping point, then he would never reach the stopping point. Likewise, if a man runs toward a finish line a designated "end" analogous to our present he would never reach it if there is an infinite distance between the starting point and the stopping point; otherwise, the distance between the two points would not be infinite, but finite.

Therefore, an infinite regression of past causes for the universe is impossible, since if the past is infinite, we would never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite. On the other hand, if the universe has a starting point in the finite past, then it would be possible to arrive at the present. But if the universe has a starting point, then it must have a cause. Some people challenge: "Why must this cause be God?" This is a foolish objection, since God is just the name or title of this first cause. The argument shows that there must be a creator who made this universe.

Answer 1

Well, the Cosmological, or First Cause Argument, doesn't fail. It says that everybody has a cause. Even atheists can agree with that, right? Everybody was caused by their parents and it goes farther and farther back until you get to the first people of this earth, Adam and Eve. Now, even if you don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve, you can still believe in God, because somebody must have created humans. Big Bang Argument- supposedly a particle of dust exploded and became the universe, right? Who put the particle of dust there? You should read St. Thomas Aquinas's other arguments for the existence of God. He was a very good apologist. I think you'd like him. God Bless!

Answer 2

The teleological argument proposes that existence of underlining principles that allow for the existence of materialistic structure suggests the existence of a deliberate intent for the existence of material existence that it may serve some underlining purpose or end. Though it may be that this argument does have some merit there is as of yet no sound and valid argument connecting it to any one religion or anthropomorphous deity of those religions. The cosmological argument is an argument for an uncaused cause that initiated all causal forces. It does not directly assert that the uncaused cause must be a specified deity. And it assumes that the perception of causality necessitates an uncaused cause. It was formulated more as a way to avoid infinite regress when discussing the existence of known reality. Neither argument is offered as proof of gods existence, but rather as evidence that suggests that the concept of god is a philosophical possibility. Philosophically the arguments themselves can not in any reasonable way (aside from circumstantial coincedence) be seen as supporting any religious claims with regards to the character or intent of the possibly existent god. The arguments only serve to illustrate that the as a concept God may exist within the context of certain definitions. The definition however would be in critical conflict with many major religious connotations of the word god, as the arguments themselves attribute no anthropomorphic sympathy or traits to the term god as a concept.

Answer 3

You need to explain why an infinite regression of causes is "impossible" yet it is possible for "god" to exist forever. It seems that if you assume the later, the first could also be possible.

Also, if the definition of God is simply "that which caused the universe", then what bearing does that really have on anything? Who cares? How does this add the purpose to your life that Christians so desperately say must exist?

Other than that, it's a very good presentation of an argument that hasn't been taken seriously in over a hundred years.

Answer 4

I think where your argument fails is that we really don't understand causation. This is a philosophical argument that people have grappled with for thousands of years now, and I don't think anyone has really figured it out.

Your argument sounds similar to discussions of ancients arguing about what the earth rests upon, since from their understanding, it must rest on something which must rest on something which ... ad infinitum.

Today we understand that the earth produces its own gravitational field which holds it together and so it doesn't need to rest on anything.

If something must have a cause, which must have a cause... well maybe you are making the same logical fallacy as the ancients. Perhaps something exists because nothing can't exist. Also, it may be that the sum over all space and time is nothing and somehow everything together cancels itself out. I'm not sure though.

It is fun to think about though.

Answer 5

it fails in that there is no need for this argument. going by your logic, the universe has a beginning, so it must have a cause. ok, let's assume your basic argument is true and go from there.

the universe began with the big bang. the cause was the buildup of matter and energy and whatnot. we don't need god however because the matter and energy necessary for the big bang were always there (like you say god was always there). the 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that the amount of matter never changes. therefore god can't have created the world because he would have introduced new matter into the universe without taking some away at the same time which goes agains this very fundamental and proven law.

if you want to call all the matter and energy in the universe "god," then be my guest. because that's what it's going to take to make your argument work. and in fact, that's the only definition of "god" that i will accept.

or if you want to claim that god just always was, and that when he created the universe, he disappeared (and had the exact amount of matter as the universe), i'm even willing to buy that. but that would mean that god is no longer around.

Answer 6

1. The whole "first cause" "argument" is fallacious.
. a) What's the "first cause" of Gods? (God as "always" is a cop-out of the highest magnitude)
. b) Why must there be a "first cause"?

( To further expound, the "beginning" (as we know it) may not be a beginning at all - the multiple Big Bang / Big Crunch scenario - I'm not advocating this. )

2. "Uncaused contingent beings and events are impossible" is agreeable, thus eliminating any "always-Gods."

3. ""Why must this cause be God?" This is a foolish objection, since God is just the name or title of this first cause." ... Thanks for the GRATUITOUS INSULT, and your opinion is noted and rejected for the obvious reasons.

I humbly suggest you could have saved some time by simply asserting: "GOD IS THE FIRST CAUSE!!!", which is really ALL your "argument" states.

*You reiterate*, so I do too... If ALL needs a "first cause", logically, honestly and ethically, so do any and all "Gods."

Further, to call a first cause "God" is a biased, sel-righteous and self-centered attribution, as the term "God" is already taken by certain peoples of (your?) faith. ... Finally, the BIG BANG SINGULARITY WAS *NOT* NOTHING = IT WAS *ALL* MATTER/ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE.

Answer 7

What is the meaning of Creator? There must be an Action Word (VERB), none other than "Create", therefore, God is the Creator, but not the one created, inasmuch as the Ultimate Attribute of GOD is of Him being the Creator of Existence. But in Christianism, there was in all eternity the Only Witness of God being the responsible One in creating any celestial existence, and that was Christ.

Answer 8

The past according to our human existence is finite. the existence of God is infinite in relation to past and future. Our limited understanding of past and what is possible in the future is a finite or worldly point of view. However when Revelations is concerned there is a moment of finite approaching to human life as we currently comprehend it's existence. The infinite future is promised to be beyond our expectations, It is to be sought after for that "election sure" to continue in that infinite existence of Love in it purest form. The other infinite existence is not one to embrace foolishly for the absence of the smallest morsel of Love is unbearable.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Answer 9

Who`s on first? Did you try to read this ? It would be easier to fold a road map. What`s your take on this, in laymens terms? Are you trying to say that it`s all a fustercluck? To me, that line of thought is a viscious circle. There is no beginning or end, you start in the middle & go in both directions into infinity, or it`s all a big circle & you go round & round. I am concious of the fact that I exist, therefore, if I see you, you also exist, regardless of your feelings on the issue.

Answer 10

God lives outside of our 5 dimensional universe.
Think outisde the box. Think of what is limitless, rather than what is confined and defined.

God is a Spirit Who lives beyond our definitions of height, breadth, depth, time, and space.