The Invalidity of the Cosmological Argument Essay - 963 Words

Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is†¦show more content†¦The strength of this argument is how it uses god to explain the unexplainable since, we can never know for certain the beginning of time []. This argument however has a few flaws. The argument states that odd are initial ca use and self-creating but, the premises stated nothing is self-creating; therefore god must have a cause. Rationally we should conclude if nothing is the cause of its own existence, god itself cannot just come into existence creating a finite four-dimension universe. This created some controversy and lead debates. David Humes proposed a hypothesis that the material universe has always existed, in which case the sequence of causes and effects go back in time forever. This explanation does not lack an explanation, because the universe did not have an initial start and no end. This argument however proves the cosmological argument wrong, since there is no god, if the cycle of causes and effects goes on forever a beginning does not exist. William Wanwright’s counter argument proposed that the fact that everything has an infinite cause for its creation does not logically follow. The example is given that if the sequence of cause and effect were off on forever humans therefore existed forever. Studies obviously show that this is not the case, committing the fallacy of composition. Fallacy of composition is when parts of a whole are used to prove something about a whole. I agree with Humen’s argument because it