<center>https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2015/11/24/17/15/spiral-galaxy-1060381_960_720.jpg</center>
There is an argument for the existence of god known as the Cosmological argument. The argument posits a logical necessity for an uncaused first cause, that the universe requires a creator since it was created. Here is a version of the argument popularized by Chritian apologist William Lane Craig:

<center>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/images/landing/william-lane-craig.jpg</center>
From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Kal.C4.81m_cosmological_argument">Wikipedia</a>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Whatever begins to exist has a cause.</li>
<li>The Universe began to exist.</li>
<li>Therefore, the Universe had a cause.</li>
</ol>

Craig explains, by nature of the event (the Universe coming into existence), attributes unique to (the concept of) God must also be attributed to the cause of this event, including but not limited to: omnipotence, Creator, being eternal and absolute self-sufficiency. Since these attributes are unique to God, anything with these attributes must be God. Something does have these attributes: the cause; hence, the cause is God, the cause exists; hence, God exists.

Craig defends the second premise, that the Universe had a beginning starting with Al-Ghazali's proof that an actual infinite is impossible. However, If the universe never had a beginning then there indeed would be an actual infinite, an infinite amount of cause and effect events. Hence, the Universe had a beginning.
</blockquote>

There are two large errors with this argument. We don't know that the universe or existence had a beginning with any certainty. This argument also makes a pretty strong textbook example of special pleading.

Regardless of what William Lane Craig and others may say there is no established demonstrable truth that the universe which would encompass all of existence had a beginning. Even inflationary cosmology and the big bang theory dares not make assertions regarding the genesis of existence. To assert anything as known or necessary about the origin of existence is disingenuous. 

The argument also makes a formal logical fallacy of special pleading. To say that the universe requires a cause but that cause does not require one has not been justified. If the first cause can be uncaused then there is also the option that the universe and existence can be uncaused. Perhaps this universe we see is the uncaused cause of everything that follows.

<center>http://www.godisreal.today/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/is-jesus-god3-740x405.jpg</center>

Lastly even if one were to yield that the universe requires an uncaused cause this argument does nothing to establish the requirement of a conscious living god. To use this argument to assert any sort of conscious deity that meddles in human affairs is completely unjustified.

Do you think you can make a stronger argument for an uncaused first cause than what I quoted? Please do so in the comments and I will respond.


If you enjoyed this post you may like my previous post <a href="https://steemit.com/life/@contentjunkie/truth-seeking-and-the-problem-with-trusting-personal-experience">Truth Seeking and the Problem with Trusting Personal Experience</a>

Photo sources: Reasonablefaith.org, Pixabay.com, Godisreal.today