Classical Arguments #1 - The Cosmological Argument

Classical arguments for God's existence are called "classical" because they are supposedly the oldest arguments used by philosophers to prove the existence of God.  The most common is called the Cosmological argument.  The Cosmological argument argues that every effect has a cause, including the universe aka "cosmos".  A simple version in deductive form would look like this:

#1  Everything that begins to exists has a cause
#2  This universe began to exist
#3  Therefore, this universe has a cause

This is not the only form of the argument, but it is probably the simplest.  Notice that if premise #1 and premise #2 are true then #3 is true whether you like it or not.  This is helpful because almost all of scientific scholarship affirms the truth of premise #2, consider the "Big Bang" for example.  So if someone wants to deny the conclusion they would have to deny premise #1 - "everything that begins to exist has a cause" - which they cannot do without looking foolish -see quote by William Lane Craig below.

Strengths:

• The argument is very simple and easy to follow.
• The two premises are largely supported by mainstream science.

Weaknesses:

• It does not argue for the existence of the Christian God, only for the existence of a first cause.  The argument is therefore not unique to Christianity.  It's interesting to note that the 3-step version I gave above was originally developed by Muslims.

Bible references:

• Genesis 1:1; Job 38-41; Psalm 19:1, 97:6; Acts 14:15, 17; 17:24; Rom 1:20

If this argument works, then you have established a number of things.  For one there is an ultimate first cause of the universe.  Second, this cause created space and time and so must be space-less and timeless.  Third, the first cause would be very, very, very powerful.  Fouth, the first cause would be personal because space-less and timeless things do not decide to create stuff.  For example the number 7 cannot "decided" to do anything.  So if successful this argument leaves you with a space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, personal being.

Do you think this argument is successful?  What are some common objections?  Perhaps you have a question.  Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!