The Cosmological Argument 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 universe came from nothing [5], the universe existed eternally [6], and the universe had an absolute beginning [7]. The 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. 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.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]There are also philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning. If the past existed eternally, then there would be an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment. If there were an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment, we would never reach the present moment. However, we have reached the present moment. Therefore, the past could not have existed eternally. [11]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 cause is most plausibly personal as well. I quote Apeiron, DDO geophysicist and philosopher:‘’If you walk into your kitchen as ask, "why is the kettle boiling?" two types of explanations can be given but only one is sufficient - the first type is a scientific explanation: that the water is heated to a point where atoms speed up their collisions, etc. But the second explanation is a personal one in terms of will or volition, "I wanted to make you tea." In some contexts it would be inappropriate to give one explanation over the other. Now the universe can't be given a scientific explanation since it's the cause of space and time we're talking about here, there's no spatio-temporal thing before or beyond space and time so it couldn't be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of personal explanation in terms of volition, a personal explanation.’’ [12]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/