The First Premise – “All things are either created or uncreated”
The first premise in the Damascene Cosmological argument is that all things are either created or uncreated. This is a premise that most people should be able to accept. Even naturalists agree upon this premise with their acceptance that energy is uncreated.
The idea that something could both be non-created and non-uncreated is a logical impossibility. If something exists, then it was either created or has always existed. There is no middle ground on the first premise.
However, the first premise does lead to two sub premises, namely that if something is created, it is mutable (that is, changeable) and if it is uncreated it is immutable (that is, unchangeable). Thus far, little controversy would arise over such a claim. The controversy begins when the Damascene claims that the opposite of these claims is also true, that if something is mutable then it is created (and therefore requires a creator) and if something is immutable then it does not require a creator.
Some would like to point out that something might be changeable, but this does not mean it requires a creator. In other words, the naturalist would argue that some things that change require creators while some things that change do not require creators; they have simply always changed. Others would argue that even if God is immutable, He requires a creator. One of the famous sophomoric responses to, “God is the first cause” is, “Well then who caused God?” Though easily refuted, I will deal with it once we come to the second sub-premise.
For now, I must deal with the idea that all things that are changeable are created and that a creator is needed because an infinite regress of events is impossible.
This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.