Cosmology and The Cause
by the theological brute
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” [Genesis 1:1]
The Cosmological Argument is elegant in its simplicity, and it is the very simplicity of the argument that makes it so formidable. To oppose the argument, one must either refuse to believe that which is thoroughly evident, or one must (feign to?) believe that which is logically impossible. It is the utter simplicity of the Cosmological Argument that allows for exactly two trapdoor exists, both of them philosophical deathtraps.
So, without further ado, the deathblow of atheism, the Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
Perfect, knifelike simplicity.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
This statement is so thoroughly obvious that it hardly needs an explanation. In fact, it may be no exaggeration to say this is the single most well-attested fact in the entire universe. If ever it has been contradicted, it has been so supernaturally, spitting directly in the face of basic physics. The most brutish of us have no difficulty in understanding this fact, yet, when cornered, the devout atheist will resort even to denying this basic truth–a frantic, frankly pathetic scramble to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the argument at hand.
Essentially the atheist has one move here: self-causation.
Obviously, built into the first premise of the argument is this self-evident fact: that which causes something to exist is other than and outside of that which begins to exist. In brute terms, something cannot cause itself to exist. This is so stunningly obvious that I’m embarrassed to have to touch upon it at all. To be clear, everything that begins to exist owes its existence to objects and events outside of itself. Example: everything. (A man, for instance, does not burst spontaneously into existence at the mere command of his own will, but rather owes his existence to a dazzling array of contingent causes, not the least of which being a sperm and an egg.)
In their vain effort to refute this first premise, the atheist will usually conjure up some elaborate theory involving time-travel, multiple dimensions, and quantum probability. As you might guess, they will have literally no idea what they are talking about. Without delving into the particulars of this genre of argument, it’s sufficient to say that these theories are at least as unproven and unprovable as any conceivable God Hypothesis, and are significantly less aligned with both mainstream science and universal experience than the first premise of the Argument. To appeal thus is to demonstrate an extraordinary amount of faith in a most speculative, controvertible position: precisely that which they claim to abhor in the theist. (Not to get all tu quoque up in here, but seriously.)
Of course, even a response as brief and admittedly superficial as that is outrageously generous, considering the rather obvious fact that the detractor himself does not even believe what he is saying. Make no mistake: no atheist actually believes there is evidence for self-causation, and they certainly do not believe that spontaneous generation is somehow compatible with naturalistic materialism. Their charade serves the single purpose of derailing the conversation; pandering to it for any length of time is futile.
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>