It never quite ceases to amaze me how much sway the cosmological argument in one form or another seems to have among certain tribes of YHWHist; today I’d like to debate not whether or not YHWH exists (although I’ll happily debate that too) but, instead, simply this question:
Does the cosmological argument
a) Prove anything
b) Contribute anything to the likelihood of the imaginary fiend YHWH being real
Well, before we start, perhaps I should outline what exactly this “cosmological argument” actually is…
All modern (and most ancient) forms of it basically go like this:
1. The universe as we know it had to come from something
2. That something is my imaginary fiend
3. My imaginary fiend didn’t need to come from anything
It’s basically a complete joke, if you ask me. Indeed, I think it rather proves the argument ineffective to note that it may equally be applied to an infinite number of subjects… for instance:
1. The universe as we know it had to come from something
2. That something is universe-farting pixies
3. Universe-farting pixies didn’t need to come from anything
Does anybody here sincerely believe that the argument holds any weight at all?
Personally, I don’t think that it even manages to establish that the universe must have had a cause… largely because we simply don’t understand either time or causality sufficiently to draw such conclusions… but also because it implies an infinite regress that can only be escaped by special pleading imaginary properties for your imaginary fiend (most notably the property of being uncaused).