The Cosmological Argument Why People Do Not Exist

The theistic argument that I think is most plausible is the Cosmological Argument. I think this because to me this is the only argument that is plausible because things do not exist without a cause. For example, people and animals do not exist without reproduction. People must have a first cause to be created and exist. “The cosmological argument for God’s existence goes like this: The world could not exist on its own so there must have been a first cause that brought it into being. This first cause is God. Or put another way, the universe could not just exist on its own—someone or something must have made it. This cause of the universe is God” (Theological Studies). The Cosmological Argument states that every true contingent proposition
has an explanation. The “universe exists” is a true contingent proposition.
This is true because clearly someone or something, a first cause, created the universe. So, whatever explains “the universe exists” must be necessary. Necessary truths are not only true, but cannot be false. This being said, God is the necessary person because “the universe exists” is a true contingent proposition-meaning that it is a fact. If the universe cannot exist on its own, God must have created it. Whatever or whoever created the universe must be necessary. This is saying God is not only true, but cannot be false. I think this is correct because under the Cosmological Argument, the world does not exist on its own, which means God had to create it. In addition to that, if God didn’t make it, someone else would have. For example, people are not just born and created out of nothing-their parents must be the producers of them. The parents are a true necessary proposition because it is true that it takes a female and male to create a child and that cannot be false; there is no other way to create a child. In comparison to the universe, someone or something would have had to make the specific other object that “created” the universe. This being said, God exists and is the necessary proposition because God created the
universe. In my opinion, the most significant objection to the argument is that “if we accept that a necessary being brought the universe into existence, it is not clear that this necessary being is the God of classical theism” (169, Rauhut).
I think this is a significant objection because it is very hard to prove that God did create the universe, because if he did, some people may question who or what first cause created him. Also, even though the Cosmological Argument states that there is a first cause for everything that exists, there is no way to prove that the first cause is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, this being said, because there is no way to prove that, the creator of the universe is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. If the creator of the universe is not omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, the creator of the universe cannot be God. People also may question if it was an intelligent designer who created the universe. This is an example of Intelligent Design Creationism. An objection could be, “what if God stands behind evolution and guides it and a design creationist accepts the basic principles of the theory of evolution” (170, Rauhut). There are many objections, but this objection stands out because, how can you know God created the universe, if there is no prove the creator is all good and knowing and God does not have a first
cause. However, we also cannot prove that it was any another one or any other thing that created the universe. We can assume it was God because if it was not, and then according to the Cosmological argument-nothing can exist on its own, something or someone must have created it- whatever did create the universe must have been created by something or someone as well. However, because God is not a tangible object, he does not need a first cause to create him. There for it was probably God that created the universe. If it was God, then we know he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent.
Furthermore, according to Intelligent Design Creationism, there could be a design creationist who created the Universe but that would consist of a first cause to create the design creationist. It becomes a ripple effect that whatever creates the design creationist must have a first cause and so on. However, because God may not need a first cause because God is a spirit and not tangible, it can easily be said that God is the creator of the universe.
I do find this response convincing. I think this because everyone believes differently, but I think the main thing is the fact that everything needs a first cause, it makes it simple that God is the first cause of the universe because he is a spirit. In addition, this response is convincing because if no one can prove anyone else or anything created the universe and God did, then God is a necessary person. According to premise seven, whatever explains “the universe exists” must be a necessary, if the creator of the universe is necessary, it is only true and cannot be false, stating that, God is the true creator of the universe, and that is not false.