The Cosmological Argument for God as Ultimate Cause

When faced with something like the cosmological argument, there is a leftover of unanswered questions. In a cosmological argument, it is stated that life is but a series of cause and effect, and that this chain is what brought about each of our eventual existences. However, it is not unlikely for one to wonder how this chain came about; is it infinite? Or, is there an Ultimate cause that brought about the effect of existence here on earth?
Basically, the cosmological argument puts forward a premise that says: everything has a distinct previous cause. In other words, every existent being is dependent on the cause that has preceded it. Upon being an effect to the cause before us, we are also, in many cased the cause to the existence of another effect and this effect by nature eventually becomes a cause to another affect and so on.
This chain is said to stretch back in time, which is where the conclusion comes in and states that at the very beginning of this chain must be an “ultimate” being whose means of existence lies solely within itself. This “ultimate” being must be responsible for this chain of cause and effect because according to the premise, it would be contradictory for this chain to have come from nothing.
Although the relationship between the premise and the conclusion prove to have some contradictory points, the premise partially supports the conclusion. Because the premise explains that every existent thing is a cause and effect, this means that the chain of existence itself must have been an effect to some initial “ultimate cause.” The premise expresses that this chain couldn’t have come from nothing because everything comes from something. Things don’t just pop into existence.
Having a conclusion that states that there is a “God” or “ultimate cause” solves the issue of a chain coming from nothing. This” ultimate cause” could be symbolized by the poke of a finger that initiates the fall of a row of dominoes. This row of dominoes would be the chain of cause and effect that makes up our existence.
However, because the premise clearly says that everything is dependent on the cause that has preceded it, one might wonder what cause preceded the existence of the “ultimate cause”? Something must have caused the “finger” to exist because it couldn’t have just popped into existence. This is a major issue in between the premise and the conclusion. The premise provides information that declares that existence is a chain of cause and effect but then states a conclusion that answers that there must be an ultimate being at the head of this chain with no preceding cause.
Above all, the strongest defense to this criticism may be that the existence of this “ultimate cause” is stated to lie within itself. A defender of the cosmological argument might say that this conclusion contains exceptions because we are dealing with an “ultimate cause” as opposed to some regular cause. Perhaps this ultimate cause is beyond our reasoning of cause and effect which is why it stands alone. Another defense to the argument might be that the premise is exclusive only to the physical beings on earth. The ultimate being does not exist within this chain but on the outside of it.
When one compares the defense of the argument to the actual argument they might find that not all of the information meets up. If the premise states that everything that exists must have a cause of existence, then God, who is to presumably exists, must have a cause. If the premise wanted to pronounce that everything that exists has a cause-except for God or the “ultimate cause” then the premise should have specified it first before concluding that a God exists on its own.
I find that the premise of the cosmological argument is weak for these reasons as it is not specific. The argument itself may have had fewer contradictions if it was specified in the premise that everything within the physical universe-alone must have a cause. Because the existence of God is assumed to be great enough to be responsible for causing the existence of our universe it could be also assumed that God is not included within our universe. With such a specific premise the conclusion isn’t as contradictory. On the contrary, with such a premise the existence of a God is not guaranteed. The initial premise, although conflicting, stated that everything that exists must have a cause. Somehow, this placed God on the chain as a necessarily existent being.
With a new specified premise, God or the “ultimate cause” is off of the chain leaving the existence of this “physical” chain. With a physical chain that stands on its own such a creator is open to interpretation. The premise no longer guarantees that God exists. So the argument no longer argues Gods existence.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that any premise will singlehandedly be able to prove the existence of God or of an “ultimate” cause, especially not in a few sentences. With this said, I find the conclusion to also be faulty. How can one go about saying that everything that exists has a cause and then so easily jump to the conclusion that God must be this cause? There is no further information within the premise that brings God, in particular any closer to the conclusion. Depending on your particular beliefs I suppose one could use this argument to copy and paste what they would like to see become the “ultimate cause”.
The argument itself is not only vague, but it is also contradictory. Once the premise is changed to meet the conclusion, the existence of God is no longer guaranteed and the argument is useless. Although, even if the premise and the conclusion carried a strong connection and the conclusion specified why God, in particular would qualify as an ultimate cause, I still wouldn’t find the argument valid. This is because I believe that as humans our knowledge is limited. Not only do I think that we are blind when it comes to powers outside of our universe, but I find that until we are no longer human, our understanding of the existence of any kind of God is going to be flawed. Humans, by nature are imperfect as it is.
I don’t find it anywhere productive to place logical “human” assumptions on a situation that is obviously not human. I think that we can only prove so much in our universe before there is no longer any words or reason to describe the indescribable. For all we know the chain of our existence may go back in time infinitely. However, it is our human logic that feels the need to put a starting point to such a chain. The human mind is eager for answers. Humans tend to feel the need to hold the answers of our existence in the palm of their hands in similar ways that some orphaned children feel the need to come face to face with the parents that created them. Perhaps, some of us need this security in order to find reason in existing in the first place?