ipl-logo

Cosmological Argument Essay

946 Words4 Pages

The Cosmological Argument claims that because everything has a cause and the universe doesn’t; then God must exist to have created the universe. This leaves God as uncaused cause, and a creator of all. But the cosmological argument fails, simply due to the fact that if God is an uncaused cause, then why can’t the universe be the same? And if the universe can be an uncaused cause, then why do we need God? The Cosmological Argument leaves us hanging here, with no sufficient answer.

The Cosmological argument, when summarised, goes like this: everything in the world has a cause, but we haven’t found one for the universe. Therefore, the cause of it must be God. But what caused God? Nothing. God was necessary for the world to be created, and thus was created from nothing. He is the …show more content…

It claims that there must be an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. If this is the case, why does it have to be God? Why a humanoid being, with thoughts and feelings? Why is it all-knowing and all loving? Why does it have to be humanoid in the first place? Why can’t the universe itself be the uncaused cause? Or the unmoved mover? The argument also contradicts itself – if nothing can be uncaused (the universe) then neither can this first cause, God. If God can be uncaused, then so can the universe.

One answer to this is a twist on the Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This theory understands the problems and hypocrisy of the original argument and looks at it this way instead: everything that has a beginning in time has a cause of existence. Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning in time – some say it is the big bang – and thus must have been caused by something.
This something would then be God. This is the closest the argument gets to proving the existence of God. If everything that has a beginning requires a cause, then something would have to be necessary and infinite in order to create our

Open Document