Classical Arguments for the Existence of God – Part 2

As we continue to look at some of the classical arguments for the existence of God, let’s look today at the Cosmological Argument.

In essence, the Cosmological argument asserts there must be a “First Cause” or “Uncaused Cause.”  The theory behind it is that everything we experience in our lives and witness with our senses is an effect of a cause.  There had to be some beginning, and that First Cause should be considered God.  Here’s a breakdown of the premises:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe itself began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the Universe must have a cause.
Even so-called “old-earth” creationists would argue that it is God who caused the Big Bang to occur.  If you take a more literal approach to the creation story in Genesis, then it’s obvious that God is the first cause.  Be careful to understand that the Cosmological argument doesn’t describe HOW the Universe came to exist, but WHY.  We may not be able to determine the specific methods that God used in creation, but we argue that it is because of Him that we do exist.
This argument can quickly deteriorate into an evolution vs creation debate, but that’s not the point of it (as a side note, check out Creatolution written by my friend awhile back).  If you don’t believe that God orchestrated creation, then I would ask you the famous question, “Why not nothing?”

What do you think?

Posted in Uncategorized
  • Bib

    Hi it's Jonathan collom, i used my gmail but for some reason my name for that is "bib" idk why. But anyway, You said you are not completely sold on creation science, what do you mean? I don't really know what to make of those "dr Dino" videos either

  • Christian

    Hey man. You can always email me too, if you want. Christian.burtt@gmail.com

    I think Dr. Dino has some good points, but he has some things against him – He is in jail because he didn't pay taxes and he's pretty arrogant. I do love some of his theories, but it's hard to determine the science behind some of it.

    I'm a literal creationist based more on theology. Namely, the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death." Also, it doesn't describe any death before Adam and Eve sinned, so there shouldn't have been death prior to the first sin – animals included.

    The common response to this is that it was a "spiritual death" that Adam and Eve suffered from. I do believe that's true, but it cannot be *only* a spiritual death, because then you can say that Jesus didn't have to resurrect physically, only spiritually. Paul says, "If the resurrection is not true, then I am to be of all men, most pitied."

    The point is that Jesus did die and resurrect bodily, and He did that to prove He conquered the curse – death of body and spirit. So that's why I hold to no death before sin, which leads me to lean towards a new-earth creation.

    On top of that, radioisotope dating (different from radiocarbon dating) has some serious assumptions that need to be made for the data to "work out" like evolutionary scientist want it to. Take a look when you get a chance. Actually, maybe I'll tackle some radioisotope dating issues in another post…

  • JamesGold

    Hi, it's James Goff.

    The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.

    By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.

    This Cosmological argument raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

  • Christian

    Hey James – thanks for reading.

    I'd just have to say I agree with you. I think the Cosmological argument is weak in and of itself.

    What's your thoughts for the other side… why not nothing?

  • JamesGold

    Well, why not something?

    I don't necessarily believe that "nothing" is a more likely state of things than "something" is. In fact, some physicists believe that it's actually far more likely for something to exist rather than nothing, but I don't think we have enough scientific knowledge at this point to be able to effectively answer the question.

  • JamesGold

    Also, I'm very curious to hear what issues you have with radioisotope dating, Christian.