Atheism 101: The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

It’s a very common argument for god, and it’s a topic atheists should understand.

Have you ever heard a theist say, “Well, everything has to come from something”?

That’s the Thomistic Cosmological Argument. Formally, it can be put as such:

1.    What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)

2.    A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite

3.    The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite

4.    Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

Technically, there are a few versions of the cosmological argument, but Thomas Aquinas’ version is the most commonly used. In general, a cosmological argument is any argument made from the position of first cause. In lay terms, it asserts that:

1.       Everything must have some cause

2.       The universe exists

3.       There must be a cause for the existence of the universe

4.       THEREFOR GOD(see illustration to right)

Does this mean that you are wrong, that God exists and is going to burn your ass forever? Not really. Where do we begin with our discussion of this fallacious argument?

In logic, there is an informal fallacy known as “special pleading.” I pulled this definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the subject, adding the italics for my own emphasis:

“Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment[1]) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.”

You may recall that a few moments ago you read that, according to the cosmological argument, everything must be caused by something else. The argument is free to make this assumption, but then it proceeds to deduce the existence of god without applying the same rule to his existence. In essence, it argues that everything must come from something else EXCEPT FOR GOD and makes no justification for this caveat. Recall also that the definition of special pleading is citing something as an exception to a rule without justifying that exception. The god that is introduced in this argument, the one which exists in a system in which everything requires a cause, and yet has no cause for himself, is a god which is deduced by logical fallacy.

Theist logic

The easiest way to point this out is to evoke the greatest tool in all of science: Occam’s Razor(WARNING: THAT WAS A VERY OPINIONATED STATEMENT).

When this subject comes up, simply point out that their god does not require a creator, and yet is more complex than the universe. If they are willing to accept that such a great and complex and powerful being can exist of its own accord to create the universe, why not just cut the middle man(that’s where the razor comes in) because he is an entirely unnecessary assumption, and allow the universe to be the one which exists without a creator?

After all, the universe isn’t sentient, all powerful, or prone to irrational behavior. God is all of that and more. Which one is more likely to simply happen all by itself?