page contents Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here Skip to content

[avatar user=”Neil Brown” size=”thumbnail” align=”left” /]

Sorry Randal, perhaps I misunderstood your position. Are you saying that the cosmological argument does not function as an stanchion for your belief but it may do so for others?

If not, I think your scenario illustrates my point. Losing that sniper might not have been sufficient to alter the overall outcome of the conflict, but it would have had some (perhaps infinitesimal) repercussions pertaining to the certainty of that victory. It is perfectly reasonable to sustain confidence in the capacity of the remaining forces to ascertain supremacy. It is however–and I choose my words carefully–intellectually dishonest to assert that it would have absolutely no affect on the certainty of that victory. To do so, is to reveal that the sniper had no influence on the certitude to begin with.

Regardless, shall we put a pin in that and proceed to the cosmological argument itself? Prior to our epistemological meanderings you outlined the reasoning as follows:

Premise 1-Whatever exists does so either out of necessity of its own nature or contingently upon a cause.

Premise 2 -The universe exists.

Premise 3-The universe does not exist out of necessity.

Conclusion-Therefore, the universe exists contingently upon a cause.


The premises of this argument contain many presuppositions. Lets begin with premises three.

How do you know that the universe doesn’t exist out of necessity?


Published inThe Cosmological Argument