Cosmological argument

=== What caused the first cause? ===
One objection to the argument asks why a first cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the first cause is exempt from having a cause, as this is part of what it is to be the first cause, while opponents argue that this is [[special pleading]] or otherwise untrue.<ref name="Reichenbach"/> Critics often press that arguing for the first cause's exemption raises the question of why the first cause is indeed exempt,<ref name=cline>{{cite news |last=Cline |first=Austin |title=Cosmological Argument: Does the Universe Require a First Cause? {{pipe}} Agnosticism/Atheism |newspaper=Learn Religions |publisher=About.com |access-date=June 20, 2008 |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm |archive-date=October 18, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111018031647/http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of the major cosmological arguments rests on the premise that everything has a cause, and so the question does not address the actual premises of an argument and rests on a misunderstanding of them.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=07bHgxbG6A4C&q=curious+blind+spot+in+the+anglo+cause+everything&pg=PA49|title=The Creative Retrieval of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Essays in Thomistic Philosophy, New and Old|first=W. Norris|last=Clarke|date=August 25, 2009|publisher=Fordham Univ Press|via=Google Books|isbn=9780823229307}}</ref> 

[[William Lane Craig]], who popularized and is notable for defending the [[Kalam cosmological argument]], argues that the infinite is impossible, whichever perspective the viewer takes, and so there must always have been one unmoved thing to begin the universe. He uses [[Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel]] and the question "What is infinity minus infinity?" to illustrate the idea that the infinite is metaphysically, mathematically, and even conceptually impossible. Other reasons include the fact that it is impossible to count down from infinity, and that, had the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, every possible event, including the final end of the universe, would already have occurred. He therefore states his argument in three points: firstly, everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence; secondly, the universe began to exist; so, thirdly, therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/cosmological-argument/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Bruce|last=Reichenbach|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|date=September 24, 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> Craig argues in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes and thus there must be a first uncaused cause, even if one posits a plurality of causes of the universe.<ref>The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, pp.191-192</ref> He argues [[Occam's razor]] may be employed to remove unneeded further causes of the universe to leave a single uncaused cause.<ref>The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, p.192</ref>

Secondly, it is argued that the premise of [[causality]] has been arrived at via ''[[Empirical evidence|a posteriori]]'' ([[Inductive reasoning|inductive]]) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. [[David Hume]] highlighted this [[problem of induction]] and argued that [[Causality|causal relations]] were not true ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]''. However, as to whether inductive or [[deductive reasoning]] is more valuable remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php |title=Deduction & Induction |publisher=Socialresearchmethods.net |date=2006-10-20 |access-date=2012-09-02}}</ref> Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.<ref name=reichenbach/> Andrew Loke replies that, according to the [[Kalam cosmological argument]], only things which begin to exist require a cause. On the other hand, something that is without beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause. The Kalam and the Thomistic cosmological argument posit that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causes,<ref name="LeaderU">{{cite web |last1=Craig |first1=William L. |title=THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT |url=https://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/cosmological_argument.html |website=leaderu.com |publisher=LeaderU |access-date=1 August 2021}}</ref> therefore there must be an uncaused first cause that is beginningless and does not require a cause.<ref>Andrew Loke, God and Ultimate Origins (Cham: Springer Nature, 2017), p. 189; Chapter 5.</ref>