The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ave again, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sure that Hitch will provide challenging and interesting objections to the cosmological argument. What else would you expect from somebody carrying such a name? Because of the debating skills of the late Christopher Hitchens, we should expect his students to be very good debaters as well. We'll see which side carries the debate.I would like to devote my opening statement to stating the premises of the argument, offering a defense of each premise, and supporting the conclusion that god exists. [1]Overtly, the argument is a logically valid modus ponens argument.[2] If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it logically follows that the universe had a cause. The only issue with this argument is the truth of the premises. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate the premises to be true.Let's begin with the first premise of the cosmological argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which was developed by Gottfried Leibniz. [3] I think that this premise is more plausibly true than its negation. Objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature and objective tendencies, so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies. Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact. Thus we can't say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. But someone who doesn't affirm the PSR can't say that the sceptical scenario is objectively improbable either. So if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we wouldn't know any empirical truths. But we do know empirical truths. Hence, the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.Now that we've established the first premise, I'd like to turn to the second premise of the argument. The universe began to exist. The current astrophysical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the universe began to exist. On Stephen Hawking’s seventieth birthday, cosmologists gathered to discuss the current state of cosmology. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin concluded his speech by saying , ‘’All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning’’. [4] Many atheists have tried to escape the beginning of the universe by postulating an eternal universe model, or an oscillating universe. Vilenkin and Mithani have proven that the mathematics of these models shows that the universe would still have a beginning. [5] Unequivocally, modern cosmology supports a beginning of the universe. Therefore, it is deeply unscientific to suggest that the universe did not have a beginning. This puts the atheist in a very tough position, because all of cosmology demonstrates the truth of the second premise. Now, the only left thing for the theist to do is demonstrate that, using deductive reasoning, the cause is most likely a rational agent identified as god.As the DDO philosopher of science and geophysicist Apeiron pointed out, there are two types of explanations that can be given for something. A personal explanation and a physical explanation. For example, one may walk into a kitchen and ask why the kettle is boiling. The physical explanation is that the atoms were sufficiently heated to where their atoms would collide, etc. The personal explanation is that I, a conscious being, wanted some tea. In some contexts, it is inappropriate to use certain explanations. This is true for the beginning of the universe. It is the beginning of all physical things. Therefore, a physical explanation will be incoherent. This leaves us with a personal explanation, with is the most plausible explanation given the condition of the universe. [6] Like Apeiron has said, ‘’The First Cause is an entity that has produced a finely tuned cosmos, containing beauty and creatures attuned to beauty, containing moral obligations and creatures aware of them, a universe containing conscious beings with free will, a universe some of whose contents have objective functions (eyes are for seeing, and so on). Thus the the idea that the first Cause is more plausibly a extremely intelligent and very powerful person acting purposively is highly plausible given all this data.’’[7]In conclusion, we have very good reasons for believing that the universe had a cause, and that the cause was a personal one identified as god. There are a few ways Con can prove that this argument is false. Con can agree that the universe began to exist, but posit some other mechanism for it. Con can argue for the eternal or multiverse models, and disagree with my arguments in that area. Con can argue that things can begin to exist without a cause. I think it will be interesting to read Hitch’s objections in the next round given the strong evidence for this argument. Perhaps, we might even get into the proper interpretation of quatum mechanics!Vale.References1: http://tinyurl.com... 2: http://tinyurl.com...3: http://tinyurl.com...4: http://tinyurl.com...5: http://tinyurl.com...6: http://tinyurl.com...7: http://www.debate.org...