Problems with the Cosmological Argument

Some of the problems faced by the cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

A. It is not possible to prove causation. I see a hammer move, and I see a nail move. But it is impossible to prove that the hammer causes the nail to move. In other words, it is impossible to prove causation with absolute certainty. And without causation, the cosmological argument collapses since it assumes causality.

B. Another problem is that premise 1 cannot be proven. All one can say is “as far as I know”, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Unless one is omniscient, one cannot know that premise 1 is true. Yet without premise 1, the argument collapses.

C. The universe began to exist. Again… it is not possible to prove this with absolute certainty. Appealing to the laws of thermodynamics is insufficient since one might not know if there is another law that we are not aware of. Again, without knowing this with absolute certainty, premise 2 cannot be true. On the other hand, the presuppositionalist can insist on premise 1 and 2 from the scripture. But the classical apologists does not start from scripture, but rather, try to use rational means apart from scripture to prove their point. But the scientific method cannot give absolute knowledge, and without absolute knowledge of both premise 1 and 2, the conclusion cannot be known to be true.

D. The cosmological argument, even if it is logically sound, still concludes that the universe has a cause. It does not tell us what the cause it. It is illogical to jump from “has a cause” to “God”. The conclusion that the universe was caused by God is not a conclusion that can be derived from the premise.

E. The cosmological argument essentially appeals to science as the basis for saying that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But as Vincent Cheung said,

“But sensation is unreliable, induction is fallacious, and the scientific method is merely a systematic way to repeat the unreliable and the fallacious over and over again.”
Vincent Cheung, The View From above, 2009, p.19

“Again, science commits the triple fallacy of empiricism, induction, and experimentation, that is, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So science can prove nothing. But we can assume it for the sake of argument to refute a system of thought that accepts science as reliable.”
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, 2010, p.49

F. Some versions of the cosmological argument leads to an infinite regress. That is, in some versions of the cosmological argument, whatever has a cause has a beginning… which in turn has a cause… which in turn has a beginning, etc. This leads to an infinite regress and a person will never come to the conclusion of a “God”. One is left going round and round in that circle for ever. Some defenders of the cosmological argument insists that if we are in an infinite regress, we would never end up at this point of history. The fact that we are at this point of history demonstrates that there never was an infinite regress, but that there was a starting point– God.

But this conclusion of a starting point being “God” is never found in the premises of the argument.

Rather, if it is true that:

a. The cosmological argument leads to an infinite regress.
b. And an infinite regress cannot be true.
c. Therefore, the cosmological argument is false.

So if the cosmological argument necessarily leads to an infinite regress and an infinite regress is not possible, the necessary conclusion is that the cosmological argument is false (denying the consequent).

In other words, this argues against the cosmological argument. Furthermore, rather than being an argument in favor of theism, it is actually an argument against theism.

G. Even granting all of the above, the cosmological argument does not tell us that “God” is the God of the bible. Even if we grant the comological argument’s advocate all the above, we end up in an uncaused cause. Nothing here says that it is God. While the God of the bible is an uncaused cause, not all uncaused cause needs to be the God of the Bible.

There are many more problems with the cosmological argument, but I think this will suffice. If just one of these objections are true, the cosmological argument collapses.

The onotological argument, another favorite of classical apologists, is at its core, based on the cosmological argument, so that if the cosmological argument collapses, so does the ontological argument. With that, the two pillars of classical apologetics are demolished.

If we want to do effective apologetics, we ought to start with presuppositionalism (Clarkian-scripturalism). “The bible is the word of God” is our starting axiom. Now, the arguments of classical apologetics maybe useful when debating with those who are stuck within the confines of empiricism (e.g. Atheists), but apart from scripture as its starting point, it faces a lot of the same problems as classical rationalistic philosophy and empiricism.