Cosmological Argument

In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). The argument follows a logical flow and can be better understood when the structure is laid out and the argument reconstructed.

In this essay, I will be arguing against Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument that every motion can only be traced back to the creator of all motions and ultimately, the universe. First I will present Aquinas’ Cosmological argument regarding motion which directly concludes that a higher being, who is not dependent on the motion of any other thing or being, must exist to have caused the existence of the universe. I will also present opponents of this argument such as David Hume who argues that a “First Mover” might not even be needed to exist but rather that an infinite regress could be the explanation of the universe and that no explanation for what initiated this infinite chain of motions is required. Finally, I will disclose my personal opinion on the issue of how all of existence began. My standpoint will be much more inclined toward Hume’s argument against Aquinas but I will be presenting a new idea with a lot of scientific backup that neither of them could have possibly taken into account at the time.

Leibniz and Aquinas adopt the view of contingency to explain the sufficient reason of ‘something rather than nothing’. To Hume’s fallacy of composition; which asserts that just because parts of a thing is caused by one thing, it is a mistake to believe the whole is created in the same way, it is only a matter of having one simple substance that makes up the whole thing. Let’s take for example a car which has different parts, made by different people; the wheel, the seats the doors etc. when each part is broken down into the simplest form in any form of matter, it is still an atom with sub atomic particles. Leibniz’s attempt to use contingency to suggest a cosmological argument is

They believe that it is possible to trace back through the causal chain infinitely. They think that non-existence of infinite causal chain is just dependent on our common sense or experience, but common sense does not always present the truth. Nevertheless, Aquinas points out the relationship among first, intermediate and ultimate causes and argues, “In the world of sense, there is an order of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). So there is a transmission among causes, and Aquinas claims, “If it is possible to go on infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate nor intermediate causes.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). But taking away the cause is to take away the effect, so we cannot break the connection among causes. As a result, I think although human being has limited knowledge and experience, Aquinas uses the rational demonstration to prove that the causal chain must have a beginning rather than infinity.

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

Essentially, the argument is “for the existence of God, based on design, order, and apparent purpose of the universe” (Roots of Wisdom, 178). Thomas Aquinas made significant contributions to both the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments, however the majority of his efforts show signs of concentration within the Teleological premise. Never the less, this precise study of God’s existence harbors more of a rational persuasiveness then compared to the other methods and through this intention lies the distinct possibility to eventually provide specific scientific validation God not only exists but also created the universe and all of its matter and mechanics. Much like Aquinas, built upon the ideas of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in regards to the Teleological Argument, William Paley readdressed and further developed the subject as did many others following Williams, ultimately morphing the argument into what is now considered Creation Science and Intelligent

Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument is a method for proving God’s existence and its foundation is based on the fact and observation that the universe exists. Aquinas states that in order for the universe to exist (an idea that we know to be true), there must also exist a cause that caused the existence of the universe. He concludes his argument by saying that God, an unperceivable image, is the cause of the universe, which further verifies His existence. This argument proves that in order to accept the factual, former claim that the universe exists, it is necessary to accept the latter claim that God exists as well.

Throughout Meditation III of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes illustrates the existence of a perfect God through his Cosmological Argument. I will begin with a description of Descartes’s Cosmological Argument, followed by an evaluation of the invalidity of the argument rooted in the limitations of the pre-containment principle. I will then offer various interpretations of the principle in an attempt to construct a premise that would allow Descartes to validly prove the existence of God. I will conclude by examining the potential of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in proving the existence of a Creator.

Lecture’s Central Argument: Different societies have viewed cosmology differently over time and this view has evolved due to new ideologies.

The cosmological argument is based on the principle of causation. In particular, it is put forward that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence and that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues.

In conclusion, through my life experiences of my heart condition of freshman year. Causing me to look for answers. And the rational arguments of Cosmological teaching there has to be a first uncaused. Teleological showing the universe is fine-tuned that chance is not scientifically possible. Finally, the Moral argument and that human's morals are created by a higher being. Because of these reasons, it helped me become a Christian.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is considered one of the most powerful argument for Gods existence. The syllogism goes like this, Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Being able to give a reason to why one believes something should be the foundation of one's belief. "The universe either had a beginning or it is eternal, there is no middle ground in the Kalam Cosmological argument" (Vitale 103). Many will try and take premise one of the argument and say that in physics there is no such thing as "nothing." Instead, skeptics will say that the universe doesn't need a creator because according to the laws of quantum mechanics it can just come into existence from nothing. This "nothing"

Cosmological comes from the word “cosmos” which means universe is an orderly system, this definition fits clearly through out the argument. The Cosmological coincides but also differs from the Ontalogical argument due to the fact it is inductive, a Pasterori meaning that Aquinas uses empirical evidence of the universe itself and questioned why it existed. Aquinas wrote the argument in his book “Summa Theologia” making a clear link to Aristotles four causes; material, efficient, formal and final. The causes needed an explanation, Aristotle concluded that this was the Prime Mover, however Aquinas was a monk in the 15th century and took this point a step further by suggesting that the Prime Mover was in fact the Judaeo-Christian God. In a similar way to the fact Aristotle noticed there was a change from potential to actuality in the universe, Aquinas noted that objects move and change, they are subject to cause and effect and the

The weight of this evidence, predominantly the encounter of cosmic background radiation which has led onto commination to tremendously support this idea that the universe came from an infinitely, single

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.