The Cosmological Argument is essentially an argument from "cause and effect." The premises of the argument consist of the following: Every effect has a cause. Therefore, there exists the universality of causation or the universal law of causation. Second, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. In other words, there must be a point of beginning. Cause and effect cannot continue into the past with no point of origin. As a result, this necessitates a "Prime Mover" or "First Cause."
The Cosmological Argument finds classical expression in the work of Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Aquinas' thought reflected his adoption of Aristotelian philosophy, especially with regard to the concept of cause and effect. Aristotle's epistemologic conclusions were based upon observation or aposteriori knowledge. According to Aristotle every movement or change implies a mover. This chain of events cannot be infinite however. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover or a Prime Mover. In addition, however, Aristotle also argued that since motion is eternal, since time is eternal and time is the measure of motion, the Prime Mover must also be eternal. In short, physical theory requires an Eternal Unmoved Mover. Aquinas', church theologian, simply "baptized" the thought of Aristotle so to speak and transformed Aristotle's philosophy into Christian theology.
Objections: A number of objections have been proposed regarding the Cosmological Argument.
1) One objection to the argument lies in its self-contradictory propositions. On the one hand, the argument proposes that there is no "uncaused Cause". However and conversely, the argument concludes that there is just such an "uncaused Cause" which is the First Cause or Prime Mover of the universe. Thus, the argument contradicts itself.
2) A second objection to the argument centers in the second premise, which contends that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions into the past. However, this contention appears to be logically problematic since critics point out that there is a possibility for an infinite progression so why is there not conversely the possibility of infinite regression?
3) David Hume, the father of modern skeptical thought, also challenged the Cosmological (as well as the Teleological) argument. Hume argued that no being exists "necessarily" including "God." In addition, Hume also proposed the "Fallacy of Composition" as a challenge to the Cosmological Argument in which he countered that while it is possible to advance the idea that "God" may gave created or "composed" a portion of the created order, but it is not logically required that "God" created the whole or entirety of that which exists.
4) Finally, as with the other rational arguments, to agree with the conclusion of the argument that there is a Prime Mover of the Universe, tells us nothing of the nature of that Prime Mover. In short, we still do not know what "He", "She", or "It" is like. In this sense the argument is incomplete at the least.
