I haven’t been here in a long time. School, work, and my family have dominated my life, but I hope to spend a little time here. I have long wanted to discuss the so called “classical” arguments for the existence of God. So, I will try to do that here:
The Cosmological Argument
There are several variations of the Cosmological Argument, but the most basic form I am aware of follows:
1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe exists.
3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
5) Therefore, God exists.
There are numerous problems with this argument; I’ll look at the argument line by line.
1) This is a claim that must be supported. Sure, everything in our everyday experience is caused, but how can we say, absolutely, that this is the case? This premise bears a burden of proof.
2) I have no problem with this one.
3) Really? How do you know? (See my objection to premise 1). We know something caused the universe to take its present form, but we don’t know the details before the Planck Epoch. Perhaps the universe has always existed, and it is the kind of thing that naturally goes bang (as in the big bang). Any claims here bear a burden of proof.
4) No. Just, no. If we accept the third premise, which I do not, but if we do, all we know is that there is a cause. We know nothing about the nature of that cause. If we are going to claim it is a god, we are stretching the definition of the word “god” to something that is unrecognizable and most certainly not the way it is used in common parlance. Plus, which god? There is no way to say it was Zeus or Thor or YHWH or any other god idea.
5) Nope, there is no reason to get to this point.
That was just my quick take on the Cosmological argument. I hope to find the time and energy to do more.