1. 

Every finite being has a cause.

2.  Nothing finite can cause itself.

3.  A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4.  Therefore a Cause (that is not itself an effect) outside of the causal chain must exist.

From facts about the world to deducing the existence of God. Inductive (probably) rather than

deductive (certainly).

1. 

If anything exhibits regularity or design, there must be an uncreated designer.

2.  Some things exhibit design or regularity.

3.  Therefore there is an uncreated designer.

God is necessarily OUTSIDE time and space. As the creator of such, He cannot exist within His own

creation – they exist because of Him. Time and space are dependent on God.

God always exists – He is not self created, but exists without creation. Neither is He self-destructive,

but never-ending.

The universe cannot have created itself and so is not the ultimate cause of everything.

For:

1. 

Averroës – The universe is perfectly adapted for humans; everything is geared towards us.

There must, therefore, exist a God who has fine-tuned it for us. Moreover, animals, plants

and so on have such ingenious constructions that they must have been invented. And where

there is invention, there is also an inventor – God. Commentaries on Aristotle. Developed

the idea of Aristotle (in Metaphysics) that there must exist a Prime Mover who organised the

essence of the universe.

2. 

Thomas Aquinas – Unintelligent entities usually act so as to attain the same goal / best

result. They need to be guided by something with intelligence so as to reach this goal.

Everything that is guided needs a guider. God is the ultimate guider. He is outside and the

governor of the universe. Summa Theologica.

3.  William Lane Craig.

 

 

The argument

The argument is formulated as follows[citation needed ]:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Dr William Lane Craig asserts that the first premise is "relatively uncontroversial". He

defines "begins to exist" as "comes into being," and argues that we know from metaphysical

intuition that things don't just pop into being uncaused. According to Craig, this establishes

 premise 1.

The second premise is usually supported by two arguments[citation needed ]:

The first argument is philosophical in nature.

1.  An actual infinite cannot exist[citation needed ].

2.  A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite[citation needed ].

3.  Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a

 beginningless series of events[citation needed ].

According to some authors, the definition of an actual infinite comes from set theory, some

 

notions of which were known to the Arabs from the Hindus. However, there is little

doubt[citation needed ] that the concept of the actual infinite reached Arab scholars through the

works of  Aristotle. Aristotle's own account of actuality vs. potentiality is a fundamental part

of his metaphysics. As actuality is often interpreted as the fulfillment of being, it is a short

 

step in reasoning to reach the position that there is no actual being of infinite processes. The

 possibility of an actual infinite is often disputed, and is the focal point of this argument.

Craig describes the impossibility of an actual infinite like an endless bookcase. For example,

imagine a bookcase that extends infinitely on which there is an infinite number of books,

colored green and red, green and red, and so on. Obviously there would be an infinite number 

of books. Imagine removing all red colored books, leaving an infinite number of green books

remaining, leading to the conclusion that "infinity" divided by two is also "infinity". Craig

claims that the inability to sensibly extend the standard definitions of  division on finite,

nonzero numbers to include infinite numbers demonstrates the physical impossibility of 

actual infinities. Therefore, since the universe cannot have existed for an actually infinite

amount of time, it must have (been caused to) come into existence at some finite time in the

 past.

The second argument is scientific in nature.[1] 

1.  Evidence from the expanding galaxies in the universe

2.  Evidence from the laws of thermodynamics

 

In summary, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the premise that the universe is not

infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence. In

keeping with the tradition of the kalam school, Craig goes so far as to say that this cause must

 be personal, but concedes that the argument goes no further in defining the attributes of the

first cause.[2] 

4. Gottfried Leibniz.

The German philosopher  Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his  principle of 

 

sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true

 proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not

otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the

cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The

sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the

reason for its existence within itself."[9] 

5. G.K. Chesterton: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked

like a plot."

6. William Paley: Natural Theology (Originally Cicero)

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. 

Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally

 

 presented as:

1.  The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.

2. 

As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of 

the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument

 — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the

 plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or 

not it was the product of intelligent design. 

In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left

implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a

form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is

usually left undefined.

 

Arguments against:

1.  Complexity does not necessarily mean design.

2.  Intelligent design does not necessarily mean God is intelligent designer.

3. 

Universe itself may be uncaused causer  – not necessarily God. Why is First Cause exempt?

4.  Natural selection rather than intelligent design.

5.  Perfection in design may be an illusion.

6. 

Infinity is not impossible.

7.  Big Bang Theory – created time, as well as space. Concept of “before” could not exist

without time.