A New Take On The Cosmological Argument

Regardless of whether or not the cosmological argument proves the existence of a First Mover, Uncaused Causer etc, the conclusion that this mover must be called God is a fallacious. Why God, with all its metaphysical and religious baggage? Why not just some overweight guy with a back brace asking you where you want your couch? To call the First Mover, or creator of the universe, God is intellectual high treason because what ‘God’ is, theologically and in popular interpretation, is so much more than just a creator. Depending on where one was born, ‘God,’ in addition to creating all that is, throws lightning bolts, hears prayers and is born of virgins. To say that the cosmological argument proves the existence of God (Zeus, Yahweh, Allah...) ignores the fact that the argument makes no distinction as to any of the other qualities of a cosmic creator.

So although the cosmological argument does not show that the creator is ‘God’ with all of the implications that go along with that, why do so many take that next step themselves? Why not just say, “We exist because we exist.” It really is to say the same thing. To say that the stars exist because of God is no different than to say that they exist because they exist. Neither offers a real explanation for the existence of the stars. Consider as an analogous situation the postulates of any of the axiomatized sciences such as Euclidean geometry and arithmetic. Geometricians (and I suspect you as well) accept that the shortest length between two points is a straight line, not because of previous assertions or proofs but rather just because. However, most humans refuse to accept that the universe exists just because. No sane geometrician would propose that the shortest length between two points is a straight line or that one plus one equals two because of God. So why is the postulate (that’s really what it is, a postulate) of the existence of the universe any different?

It is highly likely that the reason why humans demand a teleological explanation for the existence of the universe is a psychological one depending in large part on the idea that there must be some meaning of life. There must be a reason why we’re here! I think therefore I am? No, I am because God says so! And thus the circle of logic is complete. Humanity demands that there must be a creator God because we must have a purpose, which must have been assigned by the creator. This is what the success of the cosmological argument really hinges on. All that the argument really proves is that we exist. Our psychological predisposition for teleology then fills in the blanks; we exist, therefore we must have been created, therefore the creator gives purpose and meaning to life and the creator is actually three persons in one, so on and so forth. Even if one were to accept the logic of the cosmological argument (which many don’t, see: David Hume, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit, etc...) the assignment of purpose and character to the creator is a by-product of humanity’s own psychological makeup.