It is evident that Lackey has some form of a religious belief, or religious hope, as he expresses

this through his interpretation of the cosmological argument. In addition to this hope, Lackey is
attempting to express the influence of religion on a scientific attitude. Lackey uses three of the
five points from the outline of the cosmological argument as premises. The first premise states
that the universe had a beginning in time. The second premise states that everything that has a
beginning in time must have a cause. The third premise states that the cause of the universe could
only be God. Ultimately, Lackey's formulation of the cosmological argument is that God is the
first cause of everything in the physical universe.
The first premise of the cosmological argument is that the universe has a definitive age. This
premise implies that the universe is not infinitely old. It does not extend infinitely into the past.
Cosmology provides evidence that the universe does indeed have a beginning. The Big Bang
Theory is an example sought to elaborate on this premise. In Einstein's Theory of Relativity,
there was nothing going on before the Big Bang, not even time.This theory states that the
universe is all there is of space and time, which means that the beginning of time is the Bing
Bang. This theory would prove the cosmological argument because it explains that the universe
has a beginning in time.
The second premise of the cosmological argument, in other terms, is called the Law of Universal
Causation or the Principal of Sufficient Reason. This law basically states that there has to be a
cause to make something else happen. If there is no cause then nothing will happen as a result.
This law can be applied to all worldly events. There are some things that we do not know the
cause of and the ones that we do know are proven scientifically. We live under the assumption
that some things have no cause, when it is more reasonable to assume that the cause is just
uknown.

The third premise of the cosmological argument is about God, the Creator. This premise explains
that the Creator is infinitely powerful and infinitely good. If the Creator is all these things, then it
can be none other than God. Proving the Big Bang Theory alone has a cause does not give proof
that the Creator is God. Instead of saying the Creator is very powerful, we want to say the
Creator is all-powerful, enough to do anything. The Creator will create an infinite amount of
good.
The criticism of Lackey's formulation of the cosmological argument spans two points: The
universe might have begun spontaneously and that the Creator might not be God. The first
critque argues the Big Bang Theory in relation to the Law of Universal Causation, stating that it
may have no cause. The first argument is that if every event has a cause from an earlier event and
the Big Bang is the first event, then nothing came before it. The second argument applies physics
for reasoning. If the universe was no larger than an atomic particle, which is subject to
spontaneous action, then the Big Bang might have no cause.
Criticism from the viewpoint of God not being the Creator, argues that if the previous critique of
Lackey was incorrect, the universe does have cause. However, all we know of this cause is that
it has the power to create the entire universe. This critique is implying that just from knowing
this alone does not make the Creator of the universe all-powerful. There is no way to formulate a
hypothesis that proves some being made the universe and whether or not this being has the
ability to create more universes. The stressor of this critique is that the Creator is something we
do not know.
I agree with Lackey's formulation of God being the first cause of everything. The first critique
can be countered with Barr's explanation that "A can be the explanation of B, without coming

before B in time." This quote can be used in two ways to counter the points of the first critique.
God can be the explanation of the universe without the universe coming before God in time. It
can also be said as the universe can be the explanation of God, without coming before God in
time. The second critique could be countered with Feser's reply to "No one has given any reason
to think that the First Cause is all powerful, all-knowing, all good, etc.". Feser argues that this is
not a serious objection to the argument. Author's such as Aquinas have works showing that a
First Cause would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. Lackey's formulation
argues points from a belief standpoint and based on other works on the cosmological argument,
refutes criticisms made by others.