The Cosmological Argument

Abiola Lapite disputes the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God -- the claim that there must have been a first, uncaused, cause for the existence of the universe. Lapite's argument is that there's no reason to suppose that there must be a cause for the origin of the universe but that God needs no cause.

Another problem with the cosmological argument is that it doesn't prove very much. Even if we accept it as valid, all we know is that there was a first cause. The argument doesn't tell us what that cause was, whether it's still around, whether it ever caused anything else, whether it has intentions for humanity. Need the first cause even have been conscious of what it was doing? As an apologetic for a particular religious doctrine, or even for religion against atheism, the cosmological argument is exceptionally weak even if it's successful.