Arguments Against The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological arguments are inductive arguments based on an ‘a posteriori’ premise, which, despite having been introduced many years ago, continue to be prevalent today. An early example of the argument is within ‘Timaeus’, in which Plato proposed the idea that anything that has been created must be created by a cause. These arguments are intended to prove the existence of the God of Classical Theism by explaining that God must be the first cause of the universe; the being setting the world into motion without doing anything itself. My thesis will postulate that this argument does not necessarily prove God, and, in fact, is rather a large leap of logic – the assumption of God’s existence based on the idea of causation simply seems to be
This can be, and often is, used as evidence against the cosmological argument, but many cosmologists continue to believe it can work alongside God being the creator of the universe. Some people postulate that the Big Bang happened randomly, and does not need a cause – instead, it was itself the cause of the universe (however, this argument can potentially lead to design rather than causation). This reasoning, in my opinion, is very logical; there is no logical reason for God to necessarily be the ‘necessary being’ – it could, in fact, be the universe itself, as Hume stated. People who argue for the existence of God based on causation believe that the Big Bang must have had divine causes, and, although the Big Bang may have been the physical beginning of the universe, God is the being that started it off. However, this argument is illogical, as there is no need to go further back to find a necessary cause. Moreover, the suggestion that God must be this ‘necessary being’ seems to be too easy of a conclusion – why, without any reasoning, has God been decided as the one being that does not need a cause of its own? It seems rather a dogmatic assumption that God is the only necessary being, when, logically, many other things could be