This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the form of the question “Does God have a cause of his existence?”
Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. Ie: My parents caused me, and my grandparents caused them, etcetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, and a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn’t get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would introduce as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us. If not, then there is an infinite relapse of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If, on the other hand, God were thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God were thought to be an uncaused being, then this too would raise difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise 1. If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise 1 is false, in which case the cosmological argument is unsound. If premise 1 is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument might be oppose on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. The existence of an uncaused God would render the simple cosmological argument unsound, and so is useless as a proof of the existence of God. Even if a “First Cause” is probable, this doesn’t mean we have proven that God exists. A mere “First Cause/premise” that has apparently done nothing more than cause the Big Bang hardly seems to warrant the label “God.” The distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence, 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. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not reliant but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the cosmological argument above. The Cosmological Argument doesn’t necessarily have the qualities normally ascribed to God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) by the people who offer the argument in the first place (Christians, Jews, Muslims).
The first cause/ cosmological argument states, "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to assume the existence of God and say that God is uncaused.
