The second example of the Cosmological Argument, which suggests that the existence of order in the universe requires a god as an explanation, also has many objections.
For one thing, the concept of “order” is rarely defined sufficiently to say that the universe has too much of it not to require a god as an explanation. And what would a universe without “order” look like? To exist means to exist with specific boundaries and a specific nature — thus resulting in order. For this reason it is possible to argue that mere existence itself results in order without any need to refer to gods.
Another issue is the “order” of this god itself. If, as believers say, order cannot come from disorder, then this god must be highly ordered rather than chaotic. Therefore, this god requires another god as an explanation. Of course, this once again drops us into an infinite regress of gods. If the believer wishes to exempt an ordered god from requiring explanation, then they will have to demonstrate that the universe cannot also get such an exemption.
A final objection to both types can be offered: even if a “First Cause” is probable or a cause to the order in the universe reasonably concluded, this does not mean that we have proven that a god exists.
Just as with the First Cause argument, just because we establish that there must be a cause to the order in the universe doesn’t mean we have proven that God exists. Something that has apparently done nothing more than cause the development of natural laws which form order hardly seems to deserve the label “God.” It isn’t necessarily worth worshipping, revering, or even giving much thought to.
Also as with the First Cause argument, it also doesn’t necessarily have the qualities normally ascribed to God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) by the people who offer the argument (Christians, Jews, Muslims). The Cosmological Argument doesn’t mean that this god must be alone — a committee is equally believable. It doesn’t even mean that this god is still “alive” or still “exists.” So even if successful, the Cosmological Argument is a failure as an argument for believing in any sort of god worth worrying about.
« Does the Universe Require a First Cause? | Arguments for the Existence of God »
