The cosmological argument

What philosophers call the cosmological argument is what countless people have figured out for themselves through casual reflection on the nature of the universe. As the argument goes, the universe can't always have existed; it must have been created by something.

More formally, the argument may go as follows.

1. Everything in the universe is contingent—i.e., everything that exists has been brought into being, or has been caused, by something else.

2. The causes are also contingent.

3. Together, statements 1 and 2 conclude there exists an infinite regression of causes.

4. But an infinite regression of causes is impossible.

5. Therefore there exists a cause that isn't contingent—i.e., a First Cause or a Necessary Being.

Polytheist perspective

The CA is most often used to justify monotheism, but the argument doesn't rule out the possibility that there exist multiple gods. Statement 5 may be written in the plural: “Therefore there exist causes that aren't contingent—i.e., First Causes or Necessary Beings.” Nothing in the preceding four statements implies only one cause can be without cause.

Furthermore, the CA doesn't require of its First Cause that it be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, or possessing other limitless attributes. It need only be powerful enough, knowledgeable enough, and loving enough to create the universe. For all we know, the creation the universe may be a mindless task. The CA doesn't show the First Cause to be a deity or worthy of worship.

Counter-counterargument

An interesting twist in the CA occurs in subsequent counter-argumentation, whereby the CA is itself encapsulated within an infinite regression, shown as follows.

1. The CA is invalid because it's possible for an infinite regression of causes to exist.

2. But the infinite regression of causes itself must have a cause.

3. Therefore, there exists a cause that isn't contingent—i.e., a First Cause or Necessary Being.

The idea here is there exists a First Cause even within a universe that permits the existence of an infinite regression of causes. But this is only one possible conclusion. Another is that the cause of the infinite regression of causes is itself part of an infinite regression of infinite regressions of causes. We may continue proposing further infinite regressions, too, until we have taken things to their logical conclusion and have proposed an infinitely dimensional infinite regression. This hints of Cantor showing infinite sets having different cardinalities.

My opinion

I reject the CA because it isn't falsifiable. Does the universe permit infinite regressions? Who knows. Maybe the universe is like the implication of Berry's Paradox—i.e., infinite in one direction but lacking a well defined beginning in the other. Or maybe the CA is valid insofar there once existed a First Cause, but the First Cause no longer exists. Or maybe the First Cause is evil. And so on. In no way does the CA help make predictive statements about the universe and is thus of little use to me. But your mileage may vary.