I don't write on the cosmological argument very much, mostly because I think I need to understand it MUCH better before I try to explain the details of it to others. I have a basic understanding of the argument so I could give the rundown of it to someone in person, but to thoroughly explain it, well I leave that to those who understand the argument in the finest of detail.
Wintery Knight shared the post, "Ed Fiser explains common misunderstandings of the cosmological argument" and it's an excellent post explaining why certain objections to the argument fail and aren't really objections to begin with, but rather are better understood as misunderstandings.
You can read the post by clicking here.
Here are the misunderstandings Fiser lists:
- The argument does NOT rest on the premise that “Everything has a cause.”
- “What caused God?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
- “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
- “No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc.” is not a serious objection to the argument.
- “The argument doesn’t prove that Christianity is true” is not a serious objection to the argument.
- Science has shown such-and-such” is not a serious objection to (most versions of) the argument.
- The argument is not a “God of the gaps” argument.
- Hume and Kant did not have the last word on the argument. Neither has anyone else.
- What “most philosophers” think about the argument is irrelevant.