I posted this a couple months ago.
Problems with the cosmological argument
This is the kalamitous form of the argument that many theists seem to be fond of. The reasoning behind it may have been derived from the Aristotelian prime mover argument.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
4) God is the most likely cause of the universe.
The fourth item is almost always going to get tacked on, and there are several forms of the basic cosmological argument that include it anyway. It turns out this argument is built on enough fallacies to make one's head spin. I'll try to get them all.
Fallacy of composition - The argument is based on the assumption that the universe has the same properties as the parts that make it up. However the universe is the name of a set and a set is not a member of itself. This does not necessarily rule out the set having the same properties as its components, but it does not conclusively prove it either. Besides the universe arose from a quantum state, in which there is a very different set of rules and properties regardless. Just because we see some things having a cause, how can we leap up a level and assume that everything has a cause?
This is like the ancient Chinese saying that because sneezing generates minute showers, it must take the sneeze of a really large creature like the god Ying Long to generate a rain shower. This is like ancient astronomers saying that because small lumps of coal give off a little bit of heat and light when burned, the sun itself must be a gigantic burning lump of coal in order to give off so much heat and light. This is like African tribesmen saying that because elephants walking around can cause small shakings, it must be a really huge cosmic elephant that causes large earthquakes.
Flawed premise - There is no scientific theory, including the Big Bang, which says there was ever a time when there was nothing. This is a deliberate distortion by apologists. It may very well be impossible for there to be "nothing." But even assuming this is possible then the laws of thermodynamics or principle of causality would not exist either. Non-being can't prevent being any more than it can cause it.
Bad analogy - There are several bad analogies in this argument. The first is that "begins to exist" is a meaningless ad hoc. We do not observe things coming into existence rather we only observe changes in states of matter and energy. There is no logical basis to make this assumption. Now if it were possible to scientifically observe things blipping into existence then the argument might have a leg to stand on, but then one might as well just assume that the same happened with the things that make up the universe. No intangible god required.
Proponents of the argument claim that the first cause must be personal in order to have willed everything into existence. Yet this is based on the analogy that humans sometimes act as personal causes to certain effects. Impersonal causes are much more common and therefore more probable.
The causal agent is assumed to be intelligent, personal, or free willed. Yet intelligence, personality, and a will are all human traits that originate from the brain. The brain is a complex system of chemicals, which is subject to cause and effect. If God has these traits then he is also subject to cause and effect. If not then he needs to grow a brain, which would certainly explain a lot.
Special Pleading - The argument resorts to this fallacy more than ever. First it is implied that existence requires a cause. However theists will argue that God is the only exception to the rule since he came first, and that he does not need a cause. Unless they can come up with other examples of things that exist without cause and then find a way to eliminate them without eliminating God, the category of uncaused things is meaningless and is just another way of saying "God."
The kalam argument is based on the reasoning that infinity does not exist in reality, only as a concept. It never actually manages to prove this mind you. However God is allowed to be infinite, which is a blatant contradiction. An infinite god would itself be merely a concept, not real, which is probably not what the argument is intended to prove. Otherwise God also began to exist, in which case the argument self-refutes.
If simultaneous causation is assumed then there is no way to rule out the possibility that the universe created God. There is in fact good reason to think that it did, and not the other way around. Humans have invented hundreds of thousands of deities throughout their history, and this creator god certainly reads like any other primitive human construct.
Begging the Question - Again there are several instances where this fallacy shows up. This is supposed to be a proof for God's existence, and if at any time God is part of the definition of any premise then the argument becomes circular. God is assumed to exist externally and uncaused, which is exactly what the argument is setting out to prove. This is no different from saying "everything except God is caused."
We have no evidence of extraneous extra-temporal entities because we are not exposed to them. How could we be? There is no logical basis to assume (or deduce) them. In order for any argument to remain logical we must work with what we know, not with what we are trying to prove.
The universe is by definition the totality of existence, and time is a property of the universe. All actions require time to carry out. Any extraneous extra-temporal being would not be able to act on the universe without itself being a part of the universe.
Argument from incredulity - Proponents of the argument will try to refute the above by saying that a personal God is not "god of the gaps" but that he is deduced for the role of first cause from the premises. In other words they claim God is the only possible answer. Give me a break. This is the same as saying that the only way to fill a hole in the ground is to use concrete, when you could also plant a tree, fill it with water, or cover it back over with dirt. Just because the arguer is unable or unwilling to imagine anything else doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't just as valid. Besides an unknown cause is no different from a natural cause.
Illicit quantifier shift - The Aristotelian prime mover argument on which cosmological arguments are based commits this fallacy. It says that since every effect has a cause, it follows that there must be one cause ultimately responsible for every effect. Excuse me while I laugh. This is the logical equivalent of saying that everybody loves somebody; therefore there is somebody that everyone loves! (Though I'll bet this isn't God either.)
Let's assume now that the argument is true. If it is possible for God to exist as an uncaused causal agent, then it should also be possible for other uncaused agents to exist. If theists were to limit the category to God, then they would have to admit that the whole category of uncaused things exists only to give them room to posit God. What is there stopping a multitude, or even an infinite number of agents from existing uncaused? (I've said it before, monotheism certainly owes a lot to paganisms.)
What exactly is required of the first cause? The only thing the first cause had to do was set off the Big Bang and that's it. It could just as easily have been the tantrum of a cosmic baby as it was the will of an intelligent personal agent. If God can be made an exception simply by saying he is, then it ought to work on any other causal agent one can imagine. Perhaps the causal agent was a giant cosmic rectum whose flatulence set off the Big Bang. Nothing in the argument says the first cause still has to exist, so maybe afterwards it was all pooped out.
Furthermore let's assume that the causal agent does exist externally and uncaused. If it's outside the universe then it certainly is not inside. If any part of it exists inside at all, then there is no reason to think that it is not a part of the universe itself. Any external agent would certainly not be any god worth concerning ourselves with. In other words it can't be a worshipped entity, therefore it is not a god at all. The cosmological argument could just as easily be an endorsement of polytheism, or point to a naturalistic origin. How odd.
In the end, the cosmological argument raises more questions than it answers. In order for it to be redeemed, apologists must come up with satisfactory answers to the following questions among others:
1) If God can exist as an uncaused agent, how can the existence of other uncaused agents be ruled out?
2) For that matter how do we know that it was God and not some other agent or deity? For example, how does one rule out the possibility of design by committee?
3) The universe contains just as much disorder, chaos, and disarray as it does order. How does one rule out the possibility that God created the universe by accident, or that he was too inept or stupid to know what he was doing?
4) Any good scientific theory must make testable predictions. How can the design hypothesis be tested, and why hasn't this designer ever been observed in the act?
5) For all intents and purposes, how is a creator of unknown properties any different from a natural event?
