Does the cosmological argument ignore the Spirituality of God?

Question

In studying Christianity it is inevitable that one comes to the point where the existence of God is compared to the existence of the Universe. This is loosely embraced in the Cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. Like most arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms; two of those are: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal argument from contingency. The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument, introduced with a question: “Does God have a cause of his existence?” [Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism, Routledge 1996, Chapter 1]

Basically the reasoning that all things have a causative factor is the basis for proclaiming that God exists. However, the argument is made that if all things must have a causative factor then God also must have a causative factor. In attempting to verify the existence of God the logic of the existence of the Cosmos is an attempt to prove that God exists. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that God and creation are existent in two very differing realms. While the Cosmos is in the material realm (where objects have matter and occupy space) God resides in the Spiritual realm (which has no matter and occupies no Space).

Spirituality has no need of a beginning or an end since there is no form of matter to decay.

The concept of the Spiritual Realm is hard to grasp in that it has no substance. My question is does any Denomination separate its belief in Heaven from the prevalent Cosmological arguments and portend that Spirituality having no substance and occupying no space has no need for a causative factor.

Answer 1

I think you're misunderstanding the cosmological argument. The argument states that everything that we see is contingent on the existence of something else - for anything we see, it wouldn't have come into being if not for the existence of something else. The existence of those things in turn is contingent on other things, and so on. As a consequence, a complete explanation of the existence of anything (including its causes, the causes of its causes,...) must either go on infinitely, or terminate in an entity which could exist without being created. The argument states that there is no actually infinite series in the physical universe, thus that the first of these possibilities cannot occur. Therefore, it concludes, an uncreated being must exist, who is ultimately responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.

The argument is not seen to need to refer to a distinction between spiritual and physical worlds. Thomas Aquinas, for example, listed this as one of his arguments for the existence of God, as well as insisting separately that God, a spiritual being, had no location and took up no space.

Not all people, even within a given denomination, will necessarily give credence to the cosmological argument. I'm not aware of any denomination that specifically states that the reason God is uncreated is that he is a spiritual being.