The Cosmological Argument

...

the argument on a scientific level in no form negates the idea that there could be a God. It simply brings about a scientific possibility to an issue that has yet to be determined, further muddying the discussion. Just like the fact that humans have the possibility to create artificial intelligence, it does not bereave the necessity for a creator of mankind as we know it. That being said, the fact that science has developed models that could create universes by chance negates the initial statement by the cosmological argument, if proven true, namely that everything in existence has a cause. Therefore, the refutations of the initial clause of the Cosmological Argument do not adequately disprove God. Yet, the arguments do sufficiently discredit the legitimacy of the initial claim of this specific argument.

The final conclusion of the argument for the Cosmological Argument is that a single creator generated the universe, namely God. This conclusion cannot be followed logically within the secession of events. It could not be logically concluded from the points presented that a single being could have created the universe. The Cosmological Argument at most could legitimize that the universe was created, but the universe being created by a single being is just as likely as it being created by a trillion different beings. This argument does not adequately reason for monotheism.

Lastly, the Cosmological Argument assumes an A-series of time, with past, present, and future, opposed to a B-series of time where the passage of time is an illusion and past, present, and future are all equally real without tense, namely before, at some time, and after. This interpretation of the A-series of time is diminishing in popularity among philosophers and physicists. Under an A-series of time, the universe would exist as a timeline having been created in the past. In B-Series, the universe would be a timeless entity with no beginning or end and would be conceived outside the universe with a tenseless conception, negating the ability to have a beginning and therefore negating the Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument is an attempt to legitimize a deity creator. However, the argument as a whole does not adequately stand up to the critiques offered by opposing theorists. By discrediting the initial statement set up by the Cosmological Argument, the rest of the theory becomes insufficient due to the issues that arise by the statement in both the philosophical and physical interpretations of the issues surrounding the assumption that everything has a cause and reason. The time interpretation issue brings about other major concerns of the legitimacy of the argument. The fact that one must interpret time in the A-theory of time is problematic as it makes another assumption that the B-Theory is not and cannot be correct. However, despite all the criticism, I do not believe that these critiques are adequate in disproving the existence of God. These critiques are able to discredit the Cosmological Argument as not being fully complete or adequate, but it does not in anyway prove that we do not and cannot have a God.

Citations

Tyson, Neil deGrasse. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. First edition. New York ; London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.

Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Oxford University Press. 1982