existance of God: Cosmological argument vs. Theism

Anyone care to give me their opinions? I’m having trouble with this question, and need some direction.

It is often argued that the cosmological argument at best establishes the existence of a first cause, not necessarily an intelligent, personal, supernatural being. So it is not a good argument for the existence of God. How might a theist respond?

I understand the definition of theism as follows:
Theism: God exists both outside the world and within the world. God both created the world and participates in it.

…I just don’t understand how I would go about answering this question though…

Why isn’t it a good argument? He who says that the cosmological argument, at best, establishes that there was a simple cause (unintelligent, etc), fails to recognize that there is as much of a chance that the theist is right as well. It’s all speculation, so there isn’t an argument that will nail the coffin closed, but his speculation is as credible as yours.


The cosmological argument is irrefutable proof that God exists. Cause is a priori. All mortal things are caused. The Big Bang was caused by the First Cause. The word we use for First Cause is God. God is not caused because God is the First Cause whose cause is within itself.

Ok, so now I understand a little more…after I did some more research, but i am still confused.
set me straight If I’m wrong please…

Aquinis mentions something about God being outside of space/time…so if God is outside of space/time, how could he cause anything to happen within space/time? This then becomes a problem of causal interaction, right?

The theists would say that it is more likely that God exists, than that he doesn’t exist.

There are 2 types of cosmological Arguements…

  1. Kalam Arguement


I. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it’s coming into existance.
II. The universe had a beginning to its existance.
III. Therefore, the universe had a cause of it’s coming into existance.


IV. The cause of the universe coming into existance was either personal or impersonal.
V. The cause of the universe coming into existance was not impersonal.
VI. Therefore, the cause of the universe coming into existance is personal.

Maybe the Universe didn’t have a beginning…

  1. Non-Kalam Arguement


I. A non-contingent universe exists.
II. Contingent things that exist require a cause for their existance.
III. The universe is contingent.

Iv. The universe requires a cause for it’s existance
V. The best candidate for this ultimate cause is God.
VI. Therefore it’s likely that God exists.

But…does the Universe require a cause? This is where I’m sorta confused.

A. If God exists, would we expect the universe to exist?
B. If god didn’t exist would we expect the universe to exist? (my thought is probably not unless we have multiple universes …that would raise the probablilty of creating a universe able to concieve life. …I believe this is called something like the Many World Hypothesis. )

Any thoughts? Criticism? I could really use some clarification if anyone is willing to offer it…

Ergo God exists.


If that is so, as stated in the premise…then what is the cause? …is it God? If God doesn’t exist, how could he cause the universe to exist?

I’m new at this…so I’m sorry if i’m just repeating things or whatever.

God is the First Cause. The First Cause has no cause because it is the First Cause.

The theist would claim that a successful cosmological argument would raise the probability of there being a deity-like being. One can point to various properties of the cause of the universe and match them to a God-like being: uncaused, atemporal, ability to create ex nihilo etc.

The vulnerability of cosmological arguments is typically in the version of the principle of sufficient reason they use; they’re often highly questionable. For example, “everything has a cause”. Does it? This is certainly not obviously true. Other PSRs can be similarly questioned.

Moderate Centrist wrote:

That’s simply a definition; it’s not an argument. You’ve abitrarily defined the Universe as something which must be caused, and you’ve defined your God as that which must be uncaused. But one could just as easily define the Universe as having no cause and be done with your God altogether. What you’re doing is naming, not explaining.

You might be interested in this essay by Quentin Smith; The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist:

royalinstitutephilosophy.org … iverse.htm

Cheers to the both of you,

All definitions are arguments.

You arbitrarily define an unit as one. But we know that all things which have a beginning are caused and we know that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang).

No I haven’t. Either God is uncaused or God has its cause within itself.

Except that all things which have a beginning are caused. And the universe most definitely had a beginning (Big Bang).

Correct. That which cannot be observed cannot be explained.

No thanks. If I want to read religious dogma which is anti-philosophy, anti-science, anti-causality, and anti-life, I’ll read Mein Kampf.

moderate centrist IS funny. and you sound to be leaning a bit to the right… but thats just my opinion.