The cosmological argument, first formalized by the ancient Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, and later expanded upon by the thirteenth century philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas, posits that all things natural are the result of a cause, of which could either be kinetic or the result of a universal force, that is, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force, and holds that therefore, because an infinite number of causal predecessors would mathematically negate the present time, a being of supernatural existence, that is, one that exist separate from and is therefore not bound by the laws of physical existence, must be the original cause of physical existence.
Understanding the cosmological argument requires a sufficient knowledge of the meanings of the terms it uses. To begin with, it must be known that “cause” here does not refer only to kinetic causes, but also to what will be here referred to as “force causes,” or the causes that are one of the four universal forces, such as the electromagnetic force being the “force cause” of the spontaneous creation of matter and antimatter. Secondly, it must be known what is meant by the terms “natural” and “supernatural.” Here “natural” refers to anything in existence which has the potentiality to be fully described in mathematical or physical terms. Essentially, this encompasses all matter and space. Conversely, “supernatural” is used to refer to anything which does not posses the potentiality to be described in mathematical or physical terms, as both physics and mathematics are studies of the natural world. Supernatural existence essentially encompasses all things not matter or space. Finally, it must be known that here “being” refers to a conscious existence capable of some form of thought.
The universe is a domino effect, having everything being set into motion by a predecessor. An electron repels away from another electron which was hurled toward it when it was repelled by a third electron which in turn itself was repelled by yet another electron, etc. Eventually, when traced back far enough, it will be found that the initial electron came into existence via spontaneous creation by the electromagnetic force alongside with a positron. Here, many claim, is where the cosmological argument breaks; however, as I have previously pointed out, the “causes” in the cosmological argument do not refer to only simple kinetic causes, that is, the interaction of matter, but also to causes of force, which therefore includes the need to trace the cause of the force’s existence. It must not be assumed that these forces have always been, for there is no evidence to suggest they exist outside of a universe, therefore they may only be as old as the universe they occupy, or, possibly, the respective aspect of the universe which they govern. This leaves the possible cause of the universal forces as either the creation of the universe itself or the creation of the aspects within the universe which they govern. In both cases, this raises the need to trace the cause of the universe. While there is no formal name given to the conditions at which physical existence operates on outside of our own universe, here it will be called “physical law” for the sake of simplicity and brevity. Physical law allows for universes to exist and/or come into existence. It is the preexisting law which now itself begs to be examined for a cause.
Physical law can not be eternal, as it restricts itself from being so. Nor can physical law be one cause in an infinite number of preceding causes, as again, it restricts itself from being so. Should a chain of reactions be infinite, the present would not exist, as an infinite number of preceding reactions await before it to be tripped, with another infinite number of preceding reactions between each one of them, with yet another infinite amount of reactions between those, etc. Much in the same way, if one continually adds dominoes to a chain, the final domino, representing the present, will never be tipped.
The domino chain requires a finite length with a defined beginning; however, as it has been shown, all physical things, that is including forces and physical law, are contingent upon a cause. Therefore, as it has been here shown that an infinite amount of preceding causes is a mathematical impossibility negated by the existence of a present, the initial cause, the first domino, must be supernatural, or, in other words, not bound by physical law.
From this, one may fall into the heresy of reducing God to a mere non-sentient existence, rather than a being. However, this view stems from an attempt, usually subconsciously, to ascribe physical or natural traits to a non-physical or supernatural being. To begin with, to reduce God to non-sentience requires a cause outside of God’s self for the inception of God’s act of creation, thus ascribing physical law to a non-physical being, which therefore makes this reduction invalid. A non-sentience requires the cause of another non-sentience to act, therefore this reduction causes a return to the domino effect which by necessity fails to posses the ability to be applied to the first cause and therefor renders this heresy logically invalid. If such a cause of the inception of God’s act of creation is found inherent in God Himself, it therefore is a non-physical act of God Himself, who is non-physical, rendering this action a thought, therefore requiring a mind, and therefore sentience.
Thus we must conclude that God has four essential traits in common with the God of Abraham which are not shared among other supposed deities. Chiefly, He exists. Secondly, He is eternal, existing outside of and independent from time. Thirdly, He is not physical, acting by sheer will, rather than labor. Finally, He is omnipotent, being able to create universes by willing it alone. In totality, the cosmological argument presents us with an important yet incomplete description of God.