# Problematic Argument
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [December 11, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735 "2006-12-11T17:29:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@janethphil](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/janethphil)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/1 "2006-12-11T17:29:56Z")
Can someone please help me define or explain this problematic argument:
The universe exists
Something must have create it
thus; God must exist as its creator
---
### Author:  [@Navigator](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Navigator)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/2 "2006-12-11T17:42:36Z")
It’s called the Teleological Argument. It fails, because the second premise is not necessarily true.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/3 "2006-12-11T17:45:20Z")
The premise on the second point is flawed.
Not all that exists has been conciously created by something.
Waves exist
Something must create the waves
Therefore, God exists.
It can be applied to anything. If you want to label any unknown ‘cause’ God, then it works. That is certainly what the ancients did with things like waves.
---
### Author:  [@Club29](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Club29)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/4 "2006-12-11T17:52:29Z")
> [@janethphil](#):
>
> Can someone please help me define or explain this problematic argument:
>
> The universe exists
>
> Something must have create it
>
> thus; God must exist as its creator
This argument sucks. Try this one.
Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
The universe came into existence.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Then from there, who knows what the cause actually is. 🙂 (there Xunzian lol)
---
### Author:  [@janethphil](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/janethphil)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/5 "2006-12-11T17:52:48Z")
I tought this argumente was called the cosmological argument
or is it teleological??
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/6 "2006-12-11T17:58:05Z")
Club,
If you switch that final sentence into the subjunctive form, I’ll agree with you.
---
### Author:  [@janethphil](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/janethphil)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/7 "2006-12-11T17:59:31Z")
thanks
---
### Author:  [@Tristan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tristan)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/8 "2006-12-11T18:39:34Z")
> [@Club29](#):
>
> > [@janethphil](#):
> >
> > Can someone please help me define or explain this problematic argument:
> >
> > The universe exists
> >
> > Something must have create it
> >
> > thus; God must exist as its creator
>
> This argument sucks. Try this one.
>
> Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
>
> The universe came into existence.
>
> Therefore, the universe has a cause.
>
> Then from there, who knows what the cause actually is. 🙂 (there Xunzian lol)
In this form, the first premise is false, and the second premise isn’t too shabby either. Overall, the whole argument is unsound. Valid, but not sound, given the first and second premises are false.
---
### Author:  [@Club29](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Club29)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problematic-argument/14735/9 "2006-12-13T04:59:50Z")
> [@Tristan](#):
>
> > [@Club29](#):
> >
> > > [@janethphil](#):
> > >
> > > Can someone please help me define or explain this problematic argument:
> > >
> > > The universe exists
> > >
> > > Something must have create it
> > >
> > > thus; God must exist as its creator
> >
> > This argument sucks. Try this one.
> >
> > Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
> >
> > The universe came into existence.
> >
> > Therefore, the universe has a cause.
> >
> > Then from there, who knows what the cause actually is. 🙂 (there Xunzian lol)
>
> In this form, the first premise is false, and the second premise isn’t too shabby either. Overall, the whole argument is unsound. Valid, but not sound, given the first and second premises are false.
Mind disproving them?
I think you mean they’re not facts. There are however have good arguments backing those two premises.