preview

The Cosmological Argument is Self-contradictory

Better Essays
The Cosmological Argument, also known as the First Cause Argument, is

one of the most important arguments for the existence of God, not only

because it is one of the more convincing, but also because it is one

of the most used. The thought that everything that happens must have a

cause and that the first cause of everything must have been God, is

widespread. The cosmological argument is the argument from the

existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that

brought it into and keeps it in existence. The idea that the universe

has an infinite past, stretching back in time into infinity is both

philosophically and scientifically problematic. All indications are

that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist.

This beginning was either caused or uncaused. The cosmological

argument takes the suggestion that the beginning of the universe was

uncaused to be impossible. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd;

nothing comes from nothing. The universe was therefore caused by

something outside it. The cosmological argument thus confirms one

element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation.

The Cosmological Argument

-------------------------

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe exists.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is

God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the

form of the question "Does God have a cause of his existence?"

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that

...

... middle of paper ...

... cosmological argument

above. The Cosmological Argument doesn'tnecessarily have the qualities

normally ascribed to God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence)

by the people who offer the argument in the first place (Christians,

Jews, Muslims).

The first cause/ cosmological argument states, "Everything has a cause

and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have

been something to start off this chain of events, and that something

is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that

everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists,

namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow

something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say

that the universe itself is uncaused than to assume the existence of

God and say that God is uncaused.
Get Access