The Cosmological Proof

[LinuxGal]

Believer: The things we see around us come into being as a result of the activity of other things.  These other things are themselves the result of the activity of still other things.  But this series cannot go back to infinity.  Hence there must be a first member which is not itself caused by any preceding member, or in other words a first cause, which all men call God.  This is the cosmological proof.

Atheist: Is the first cause all powerful, all good, and personal?

Believer: Of course! He's God!

Atheist:  How does the cosmological proof necessitate an all-powerful, all good, and personal being to be the cause of the second cause?

Believer: It doesn't.  It was never intended to prove that. You need different arguments for that.

Atheist: To say there is a necessary being is to say it would be a self-contradiction to deny its existence.

Believer: That's obvious.

Atheist: That implies the claim of a first cause is a necessary truth, which in turn presupposes that existence is contained within the concept.

Believer: Agreed.

Atheist: But only predicates can be contained within a concept, and existence is not a predicate.  Therefore to talk about anything "existing necessary" is to commit a category mistake.  This is the same error that renders the ontological argument absurd.