I'm writing a paper on the Cosmological Argument. I have to provide arguments for and against the validity of the argument. I've done a lot of research and I already have a substantial amount of knowledge and information.

However, I'd like to spark some discussion on it now, simply because it's interesting and also because it'd be nice to see some of you bring up some things I haven't read about or haven't thought of.

The Cosmological argument is a theistic argument that invokes an empirical fact about the world. It argues that everything must have a cause for its existence. It comes down the point where it claims that an infinite serious of casual conditions cannot provide an adequate explanation for all existence, and that there must be some sort of pre-existing being which fills in the final gap, or you could say, the beginning of all existence, a God.

What do you think? What is your opinion regarding flaws in this argument, or why do you support this argument?

The very basic counterargument or question is.

Why does everything need a cause....but the first cause or "god" does not?

Also....if there is this first cause the argument does not identify any characteristics of such a being such as will and intent so on.

I find it a pretty flimsy argument to say the least.

I don't know/understand everything so God did it. Yawn, don't argue with retards

Why does everything need a cause....but the first cause or "god" does not?

Good question. I wonder why that is so?

OH yes - because it helps validate the idea that a divine being was at the helm at some point, tuning the knobs and configuring the natural laws that makes this Universe as it is. And it helps the Homo sapiens who invented this divine God feel confident and resolute about their own creation.

If one could wrap their minds around the concept of "God has always existed" - it should be equally just as easy to assume that the Universe itself has always existed.

Why complicate matters?

If one could wrap their minds around the concept of "God has always existed" - it should be equally just as easy to assume that the Universe itself has always existed.

Why complicate matters?

Peace of mind through humility.

Peace of mind through humility.

What an honest answer.

I don't think there has to be a first cause, but even if there was, isn't it a massive assumption to assume that first cause must be a God (especially the form Aquinas had in mind)?

It wasn't a massive assumption for Aquinas if you consider how it ties neatly in with his theory of analogy concerning God.