Everything that comes into existence has a cause, the universe came into existence thus it had a cause and that cause was God.

The Cosmological Argument starts out with a decent premiss and then plunges head first into stupidity.

"Everything that comes into existence has a cause" this makes sense and fits with our observations (except maybe on the quantum scale) but beyond this point, it fails.

"The universe came into existence" this is where that argument starts to fail. The closest we have to evidence that the universe had a beginning is the big bang but as I've said in part 1 we don't know what was before the big bang. The universe could have existed in some form before the big bang, the big bang (and thus the universe) could have came out of another universe or some combination of the two. We don't know.
"and that cause was God" This is where the argument goes from a fail to an epic fail. Even if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean what cause the universe was some deity. It is much more plausible the the universe would have came out of another universe though some natural process.

To get out of the two fatal problems of the cosmological argument creationists claim that infinity is impossible, there needs to be a first cause because with out a first cause you get an infinite regress and infinity is impossible.
Of course infinity is not impossible. When asked why its impossible they will probably say something like "you can't have an infinite number of points between two points" (paraphrased). This argument is bullshit because infinity is not a number infinity is a mathematical concept. Of course you can't have an infinite number of points between two
points but outside the two points it goes on infinitely, forever.

Links and Information
Wikipedia - Cosmological Argument
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Cosmological Argument
All About Philosophy - Cosmological Argument

© 2009 all rights reserved

<-Part 1 | Part 3->