The Cosmological Argument

"Why does something exist rather than nothing?"
Is the seemingly infinite cosmos eternal in the past? Does it go on forever and ever with no beginning? I submit that this is not a viable option for multiple reasons. For a more detailed explanation of why I believe an infinite regression of past events is not possible in reality, visit my blog titled "God As The Explanation Of The Universe"

This is an argument for the existence of a God that attempts to demonstrate that there cannot, in fact, be an infinite regression of causes to things that exist. There must be a final un-caused cause of all things. This "First Cause" is God.

1. Things exist.
This fact cannot be argued against. It would be self-defeating for someone to argue against their own existence. For they'd have to exist in order to argue!
2. It is possible for those things not to exist.
For example, you and I do not have to exist. We are caused to exist by some external source. We exist contingently; that is to say that we (along with all temporal objects) are caused to exist by something else. Also, we can envision a world in which things did not exist, therefore their non-existence is not impossible. In other words, they do not have to exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of nonexistence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. It would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is non-sensical. Therefore, this premise seems true for temporal objects.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
An infinite regression of causes means there is no initial cause, which means there would be no cause of existence. Since the universe consists of contingent things, the universe must also have been caused to exist. An infinite regression is also not a viable position:
Philosophical Arguments: Hilbert's Hotel, and it is not possible to traverse an infinite number of past events. If the total number of past events are infinite, we never would have reached this moments in time. Yet, we are here. Thus, there must have been a beginning in the finite past. Contemporary Cosmology has demonstrated through the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that the universe must have a past space-time boundary. To argue against this premise would be to argue against all of the evidence.
5. Therefore, there must have been an uncaused cause of all things.
Since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a First Cause that pushed over the first domino, so to speak.
6. The uncaused-cause must be God.
If the universe has an ultimate beginning, which has been clearly demonstrated, then what is the viable explanation for the First Cause of the universe? We know that if time, space, and matter had an ultimate beginning, then the First Cause must be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. If the First Cause existed within time, space, and matter then it would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. The First Cause would also have to be incredibly powerful in order to bring time, space, and matter into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo). The First Cause must be intelligent in order to create a universe with such design and fine-tuning to support biological life. There was precision of monumental proportions that allow life known as anthropic constants. This kind of fine-tuning points directly to a designer. Chance, nor physical necessity are not viable options. The First Cause must also be personal, for the Cause must have chosen to will the creation of time, space and matter into existence. Impersonal objects do not make choices. Therefore, the best viable explanation for the existence of a finite and contingent universe is God.


This a logical and airtight argument that demonstrates the existence of a First Cause with the attributes of an unembodied mind: God.