Since the beginning of time, people constantly look for ways of justifying their religions. The most basic justification would be the presence of God. For this reason, many religions look for ways of proving that God Exists. Cosmological arguments are those that seek to show either the presence or the absence of God in the universe (Hume, 59). In the cosmological argument, one looks at one factor about the world. Such factors include the fact that the earth has materials that cause others to exist. The cosmological argument has two parts. The first part seeks to proof the existence of a supernatural being. The second part seeks to elaborate on the features of this supernatural being. The characteristics of this supernatural being include the fact that he is omnipresent, omnipotent among others. The cosmological argument generally revolves around the idea that the existence of the universe is itself evidence that there is a supernatural being (hume, 60).
According to the cosmological argument, the only way to explain the universe is God. Cosmological argument has various strategies. First, that the universe has a beginning or does not have a beginning but has existed through all eternity. The second argument states that the universe has a beginning and God exists. The third argument states that the universe does not have a beginning but has existed through all eternity, indicating that God exists. The conclusion of this argument is that God exists(Hume, 60). The cosmological argument has a certain similarity with other arguments that try to explain the existence of God. This similarity is all the arguments exist in various forms. One interesting similarity that the various forms share is how they evade the first objection to the cosmological argument. The argument questions if God has a cause for his existence.
This objection roots from the basic set up of the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause for his existence and the universe exists(hume,60). Therefore, the cause of the existence of the universe is God. In conclusion, God exists. This simple argument brings out the objection. It does not explain the cause for the existence for God himself. In a way, this argument contradicts itself. If God has a cause for his existence, then it is illogical to prove that the universe exists because of God. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then we cannot explain the existence of the universe. If then universe exists because of God, there is still one entity that we cannot explain, namely God. In this concept, introduction of God as the source of life raises many questions.
The argument already states that all things have a cause for existence therefore; they cannot contradict themselves by saying that God is a causeless being. If God exists but has no cause for his existence then the first entity is wrong. If some objects exist but do not have a cause for existence then maybe the universe is one of them. This argument affects the evidence that God exists due to the presence of the universe. If the universe existed without cause then God does not exist. In conclusion, if God exists with no cause, then the entire cosmological argument is wrong.
In response to the objection, an argument of this sort is unreliable. It would be wrong to conclude that an entire collection of objects feels light in regards to weight simply because the individual objects are light. Once put together, their weight changes (Rowe, 24). The weight becomes much heavier once the objects combine in a big collection. Using the same concept, if we put together marbles that weigh more than one ounce, then the entire collection of marbles will obviously weigh more than one ounce. This is the reasoning behind the objection. The cosmological argument states that each member of the collection of beings has a cause for existence. The objection then assumes that the entire collection of dependent beings had a cause for existence.
The objection uses this inference wrongly to seek for an explanation about the collection of dependant beings (Rowe, 25). For the objection, every positive action has to have an explanation. The cosmological argument does not state anywhere that there has to be an explanation or cause to collections of existing beings. In support of the cosmological argument, the objection looks at a dubious inference from the assumption that all dependant factors in the universe have a cause for existence. In this way, the objection is not strong enough to cause any harm to the cosmological argument. It does little harm to the second premise of the cosmological argument, which states that every member of the collection of dependant being has an explanation or cause for existence.
According to the second premise, not all objects are dependant beings. This means that not all objects have a cause of existence. It is not correct to assume that all factors on earth have a cause for existence.
Works Cited
David, Hume. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, New York: Heffner Publishing Company 1948 (59-60)
William Rowe. Philosophy of Religion, California: Wadsworth Publishing 1978 (21-29)
