Michael Shermer on The cosmological argument
Shermer argues the cosmological argument is a sophisticated version of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, filling ignorance about origins with a preferred answer.
Michael Shermer treats the cosmological argument as a god-of-the-gaps argument dressed in philosophical clothing. The basic structure, as he sees it, is: we do not know why the universe exists, therefore God. But this is exactly the pattern of reasoning that has failed repeatedly throughout the history of science — attributing to God what is simply not yet understood, and then retreating when science provides a natural explanation.
Shermer is particularly sceptical of the claim that the universe must have a cause while God does not. He regards this as special pleading — an arbitrary exception to the very principle the argument invokes. If the principle of sufficient reason demands an explanation for the universe, it demands an explanation for God. If God can be self-explanatory, so can the universe. The argument, in Shermer's view, generates a mystery rather than resolving one.
He prefers to adopt an agnostic position on the origin of the universe: we do not yet know why there is something rather than nothing, and this is an honest and scientifically productive stance. The cosmological argument, by contrast, terminates inquiry by declaring the answer before the investigation is complete.
“The cosmological argument is a beautifully constructed argument from ignorance. We don't know why the universe exists, so we fill the gap with God. But that's not an explanation — it's a placeholder.”