The Premise of the Cosmological Arguement and Some Objections

Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.

Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an independent being that caused the creation of our universe, while the second phase’s purpose is to argue that this being has godlike features like omnipotence and immanence. To justify the claims in these phases, the Cosmological Argument takes into consideration the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which is the principle that there is an explanation for the existence of every single thing (referred to as PSRa), and for every positive fact (referred to as PSRb). This principle is a key element of the cosmological argument as it provides rationale to the premises of the argument with what appears to be obvious facts.

An example of the Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1. If at any time in the past nothing existed, then nothing should exist.

2. There is something that exists now.

3. Something has always existed.

4. If something has always existed, then reality is based on a series of dependent beings, or there has always been an independent being.

5. Reality being based on a series of dependent...

... middle of paper ...

...for the existence of everything, is based around PSRb. If the principle was incorrect and there was no explanation for every single positive fact, the fifth premise would also be unable to hold the same claims as before and would deny the cosmological argument.

This objection towards the Principle of Sufficient Reason also brings up an intriguing point. If the validity of PSR is at question, how can we even consider the Cosmological Argument as a viable argument? The premises are sound when supported by PSR, but if the principle is false, does it not invalidate the whole argument? While this might seem like a valid response to the argument, we must consider that the exact point could also be made in the opposite way, though. If we cannot prove that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true or false, how can we know that the Cosmological Argument isn’t a valid one?