roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

the world and decline to push through to the conclusion of an
extramundane cause? The cosmological argument would therefore
appear to be invalid.
In answer: the argument, if properly formulated, does not at
all exempt God's being from the causal axiom; it certainly is legitimate
and necessary to ask for the cause of God's existence.
But the argument does explain why God does not need an extraneous
cause. For when we ask for the cause of God's existence,
there are two possible answers: either he contains the
ground of His existence within Himself, i.e., He is self-existent
or self-conditioned; or He depends for existence upon some extraneous
cause. But this last is impossible, for the same problem
would arise about the extraneous cause and [[293]] so on to
supposed infinity. Now it is just the point of the cosmological
argument that an infinite series of causes and effects is impossible,
as we have shown already in our consideration of the argument
and will present again in the sequel. At some point, it
is rationally necessary to posit a self-existent cause or reality.
If it be objected that the rationally necessary may not be the
existentially real, we have already shown that this objection is
self-contradictory. If it be said that since we must posit a selfexistent
cause, why not grant this status to the world itself, this
objection has also been answered and will likewise be met in
greater detail below.
It therefore becomes evident that while the cosmological argument
does not exempt God from the causal axiom, it does
show why it is that His existence requires no extraneous cause:
namely, because His self-existence is the only alternative to a
self-contradictory infinite series. I therefore conclude the invalidity
of the objection.
Objections which grant that the universe requires explanation
but which attempt to show that it can be explained in terms