Humans will never know for sure why the universe was created or what caused it, but we can still create arguments and theories to better explain what it might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of God. Many philosophers argue why the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts very simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existence, nothing creates itself []. The cosmological argument at one point states that the sequence of cause and effect must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is God. According to the argument, God is the initial beginning of the universe as we know it. Although nothing creates itself, cosmological believers say that God is the only self-created being. Thomas Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs of the existence of God knows how, the “Five Ways”.[]. In every “way” he describes his evidence of how God fills in the blanks of the inexplicable. The first way simply states that things in motion must be set in motion by something. The second was efficient because nothing brings itself into existence. The third is possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias has two other “ways,” but for the purposes of this essay I will not focus on them in depth. These ways pushed philosophers to discuss and question his arguments, ultimately rendering the cosmological argument moot. The cosmological argument, however, is not a valid argument to explain the existence of God because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises. The main point of the cosmological argument is first cause. As stated (by Thomas Aquinas) the world... middle of the paper... the conclusion does not follow logically. If nothing creates itself, God, for whatever reason, should be no exception. The first way Aquinas suggested that things in motion were set in motion by something. The Big Bang itself was a movement, and God could not have set this movement himself, because it would mean that God was set in motion by something else in motion. Changing the conclusions of the cosmological argument to logically follow its premises would make it valid. Instead of forcing God as a conclusion, keeping an open mind and offering counterarguments helps us understand the possibilities out there. Maybe there is no god at all and the universe has always existed. Perhaps there was another universe before ours that had been compressed to such an extent that the tiny fragment on the left exploded in a fraction of a second. Although the cosmological argument is not valid to explain existence