In the middle of the 17th century, thinkers in the enlightenment began to question how belief in the existence of a monotheistic God could be rationally supported. A number of arguments for and against the existence of God emerged at this time, and while the philosophical debate on the existence of God is still in session, the initial dust has settled. At this point in time, it is abundantly clear that a the cosmological argument is untenable at both a metaphysical and empirical level, and that the various versions of the cosmological argument fail to support the existence of God. There is good reason for critically examining the cosmological argument. Theists have made a claim that God exists. Fideists maintain their beliefs by not needing rational support or empirical evidence, agnostic’s have no religious beliefs to speak of, and atheists have a disbelief in the existence of God. Deists want to base their belief in rational explanation, and therefore their beliefs should be questioned, as the burden of proof lays on the party who has made the claim. In addition to to proving their claims, deists must deal with counter arguments, which in this case they have failed to do.
The first instance of a cosmological argument seems to have been in Plato’s The Laws, but the the basic cosmological argument as we know it today has the following premises;
1. If E exists, then there is a God.
2. E does exist.
3. So, there is a God.
This simple format begets many forms of…