The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Ave.The cosmological argument is a simple argument for the existence of god. The premises go like this:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) The universe had an (uncaused) cause. [1]The argument is in a logically valid Modus ponens. [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.Premise one is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[3] The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a philosophical principle postulating that everything must have a reason for its coming into being. I think that there are very good epistemological reasons to accept the PSR as true. How would we practice science if things came into being without any cause? Science is predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, and we should go out and discover the cause of why it happened. It’s deeply anti-scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason. [4]There are three major explanations for the origin of the universe. The first explanation is that the universe came from nothing, without cause. This view is advocated by Lawrence Krauss and his book A Universe From Nothing. The second explanation is that the universe existed eternally. If the universe existed eternally, then it never began to exist. Therefore, it doesn't require a cause according to the cosmological argument. Victor J. Stenger thinks that this is the best explanation. This is an excerpt from an article he wrote for the Huffington Post. The final explanation is that the universe had an absolute beginning. This hypothesis that the universe had an absolute beginning is the most convincing of these three, so premise two is upheld. Let’s investigate the three hypothesis and their plausibility.The universe couldn’t have come from nothing without cause. This is affirmed by the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit [8]. In English, this means ‘’Out of nothing, nothing comes’’. There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness. I’ll give two arguments as to why this is true. Firstly, the potentiality argument. If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is no potential for anything to happen. If there is no potential for anything to happen, then there is no potential for a universe to come out of nothing. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness. Secondly, the property argument. If you have absolute nothingness, then you have the universal negation of everything. Logically, you would then have the universal negation of all properties. But if something can come from nothing without cause, then that nothing does have a property. The property of something coming from it. By definition, something cannot come from an absolute nothingness, because then you never had an absolute nothing to begin with.Dr. Krauss has argued that virtual particles are an example of something coming out of nothing. Critics savagely tore down this example in their review of his book. Consider what atheist philospher and physicist David Albert had to say in his New York Times review... So, what about the eternal universe? Well, an eternal universe would require an absolute beginning. Cosmologists have explored the mathematics of an eternal universe and concluded that it had a beginning. Even if the universe existed forever, it still began to exist, so the eternal universe hypothesis does not refute premise two. [9] All of the current astrophysical evidence demonstrates that the universe began to exist. On Steven 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’’. [10] The cause of the universe beginning to exist is most plausibly god. The cause would exist before time, space, and matter, because it caused them to exist. The cause is, therefore, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The most important thing is to show that this cause was a rational agent, and not some material or physical cause. Apeiron, DDO geophysicist and philosopher, explains... It’s also important to note that something which can cause the universe to exist must be extremely powerful, which suggests omnipotence.In conclusion, the cosmological argument establishes a cause of the universe that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, personal, and probably omnipotent. Using inference to the best conclusion, this cause is most likely god.Vale.References[1] http://plato.stanford.edu......[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] http://plato.stanford.edu......[4] http://plato.stanford.edu......[5] http://tinyurl.com......[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com......[7] http://sententias.org......[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com......[9] http://www.technologyreview.com......[10] http://www.newgeology.us......[11] http://www.reasonablefaith.org......[12] http://www.debate.org......e/1/