God Exists (Cosmological Argument)

Ok, so I first want to start out describing where my opponent and I agree. First, we agree that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is to say that we both acknowledge that "out of nothing, nothing comes." After all, if something can come uncaused out of nothing, then why can"t just anything come uncaused out of nothing? Why not a bobcat in your bedroom or a llama in your living room? Why only universes and only 13.5 billion years ago? What is it about "nothing" that makes it so discriminatory?!? Again, my opponent and I agree on this point. Secondly we agree that the universe began to exist. I won"t belabor the point here, but I provided some evidence for this premise in my opening statement. Where we either disagree or perhaps there is a subtle nuance is at the statement, "Everything has a cause." That would be a statement that I wouldn"t agree with. I had said before that everything that *begins to exist* has a cause. If something does not *begin to exist* then it doesn"t seem like it could have a cause that brings it into existence. Since time was created with the universe, this cause must have existed in a timeless state. For this reason the cause of the universe, whether or not it is God, could not itself have a cause that brings it into existence. In such a timeless state there wouldn"t be any "beginning point" at which the cause of the universe came into existence. This also leads into the explanation I gave as to why this cause must be personal. Since the first cause existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of the universe, then the state of affairs could not change over time (since there literally was no time for it to change). This cause must have existed timelessly. Now if the cause was impersonal, then it cannot make decisions. It didn"t *decide* to create the universe. If the cause was impersonal, then it would create the universe whenever the sufficient conditions were met. Since the cause existed in a timeless and eternal state, then the sufficient conditions would have been met timelessly and eternally. But if the cause creates the universe whenever the sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then the cause would have created the universe from eternity. In other words, we would experience a universe that is eternally old. As an illustration, consider our sun. We know that our sun is impersonal, and therefore it produces sunlight whenever the sufficient conditions are met. In the case of the sun the sufficient condition is nuclear fusion in the sun"s core. It doesn"t *decide* to shine, it does so automatically whenever nuclear fusion is going on. Now if our Sun had existed in a timeless and eternal state then the nuclear fusion would have been going on timelessly and eternally. The sunlight coming from the sun would have been shining from eternity past. In the same way, if the cause of the universe is impersonal then it would have created the universe from eternity past (since we know it must have existed in a timeless state in which the "sufficient conditions" could have never changed). We don"t, however, encounter an eternally old universe. Since our universe is not eternally old, and we would expect it to be if the cause is impersonal, then the cause must not have been impersonal. Let me sketch out the reasoning here: 1.If the first cause was impersonal, then the universe would be eternally old. 2.The universe is not eternally old. 3.Therefore, the first cause is not impersonal. Let me give you one more reason that the cause must be personal. We know that space, matter, and energy came into existence with big bang at the creation of the universe. This means that the first cause must be spaceless and immaterial. In other words, it must be an abstract object (rather than a concrete object). There are only two types of abstract objects, however, numbers and an unembodied mind. Numbers don"t stand in causal relationships to things, however, so the first cause couldn"t have been a number. Therefore, the first cause must have been an unembodied mind. If it is an unembodied mind, then it must have been a person. Let me sketch out the reasoning here: 1.If the first cause is immaterial, then it is an abstract object. 2.If the first cause is an abstract object, then it is either a number or an unembodied mind. 3.The first cause is immaterial. 4.Therefore, the first cause is an abstract object. (from 1 and 3) 5.The first cause is not a number. 6.Therefore, the first cause is an unembodied mind. (from 2, 4, and 5) I have identified the points of disagreement between my opponent and I (that everything that exists has a cause and that the first cause was personal). I have explained why only things that begin to exist must have a cause to bring them into existence and I have given two lines of argument for why the first cause is personal. This leads us to the conclusion that a personal and immaterial creator of the universe exists. If my opponent is to defeat my argument, then my opponent must do three things. 1) My opponent must show why even something that does not come into existence requires a cause to bring it into existence. 2) My opponent must demonstrate the error(s) in both of my two lines of argument for the personhood of the first cause. 3) My opponent must give us some reason to believe that an impersonal cause is capable of creating the universe.