• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain Aquinas cosmological argument for the existence of God. Humes criticisms alone completely discredit the cosmological argument Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


Explain Aquinas' cosmological argument for the existence of God The Cosmological Argument has several forms, but is fundamentally a proof for the existence of the God of classical theism. It seeks to respond to the human need for answers to questions like "who created the universe?". The word 'cosmos' refers to the universe as an ordered, harmonious and holistic entity. Aquinas stated that nothing comes from nothing; the universe exists, so something must have made it - that can only be God. Thomas Aquinas developed this argument which the ancient Greeks also used for the existence of God. He began in the natural world of the senses and reasoned from it, making this an a posteriori argument. The final work of Aquinas was his Summa Theologiae which summed up his idea of theology demonstrating the existence of God known as the Five Ways of which three are cosmological; they are the First Cause Argument, the Prime Mover Argument and the Argument from Contingency. Aquinas's argument started with the first way: motion. Aquinas believed that everything in existence is in motion or has the potential to change, for example, humans develop, grow old and die. In Aquinas' way of thinking, you cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, for example it makes no sense to talk of ...read more.


There was a time before certain things existed, and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. For Aquinas, the only thing which has always existed is God (who would therefore have necessary existence). Furthermore, Aquinas saw no way to explain how anything was here, unless something was already in existence prior to it. Thus if God did not exist, nothing else would exist. Aquinas concluded that this necessary being, which all contingent beings came from, is God. In conclusion it is evident that Aquinas' cosmological argument seeks to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of the argument is to establish what caused everything to be here and how the world and the universe began. Hume's criticisms alone completely discredit the cosmological argument - Discuss This statement represents the view of those such as Kant, Russell and of course Hume himself who are against the cosmological argument because of various faults in the theory. I disagree with the statement as I believe the cosmological argument is a logical way of establishing how the world and universe began - there must have been something that is outside space and time, non-contingent and needed no cause of its own and this in my opinion was the superior power of God. ...read more.


Hume's next criticism is one of the lack of empiral evidence as there is no direct experience of the creation of the universe. Hume maintains that the Cosmological argument begins with familiar concepts of the universe and concludes with not-so-familiar concepts beyond human experience. For Hume, God's existence cannot be proven analytically since the definition of God's nature is not knowable. Hume concludes that it is not possible to prove the existence of a being who is unknowable and different from all other beings. When considering this I see Hume's point however there is no evidence of any experience of the creation of the universe therefore the idea of proof in this aspect of philosophy is, I believe, irrelevant. In conclusion, given the controversy and debates that surround the cosmological argument, including Hume's critiques, it is certainly apparent that the theory is not without its faults. That having being said, I do not believe that the criticisms of Hume completely discredit the argument as there is no proof of anything to do with the creation of the universe therefore every viewpoint can be reasoned with. Even today the cosmological argument remains appealing and credible and after balancing all opinions, although it is slightly contradictory when saying everything needs a cause except God, it stays a strong argument that Hume's critiques have not completely discredited. ?? ?? ?? ?? Georgia Nicoll ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Explain the cosmological argument for existence of God

    something to change, rather than the things themselves which change which is what the unmoved mover is concerned about. The Unmoved mover focuses on the present moment whereas the first cause focuses on the past up to the present moment.

  2. Outline the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.

    The first apparent weakness of the argument is the first premise; that things can either exist or not exist. As the argument was composed in the thirteenth century, Aquinas would have no knowledge of the 'conservation of energy theory', or Einstein's theory of relativity, both of which state (or imply in the case of the second)

  1. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    untrue; if something can pop into existence and pop out of existence, then it cannot also pop back into existence again.20 Thus, according to Hume, all things may be contingent, without any need for necessary existence. 21 Here the arguments are ordered so we can examine specific premises.

  2. St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

    This cannot go on forever as there would be no first mover and hence no subsequent mover. Therefore there must be a first unmoved mover, who is G-d. CONCERNED WITH THE THINGS THAT CHANGE. * FIRST CAUSE: - nature of efficient causes.

  1. Cosmological argument

    a world with flaws in order to produce the best environment in which we could grow morally and spiritually, after all there does seem to be some proof for this occurring in the world as people who go through struggles often claim a new sense of self and moral awareness

  2. What are the key ideas of the Cosmological argument for the creation of God?

    One of the weaknesses with occurs in the first theory from Aquinas is that some things do not need anything else to make it move. For example the movement of a body in space does not need a force form a previous mover.

  1. The Cosmological Argument

    things move) requires a mover ('... the series must start with something for nothing can come from nothing' (Aristotle)). The key idea is that if something exists there must be starting factors that have influenced/caused it to exist. An example of this might be to say that if the computer

  2. Humes criticism of the cosmological argument do not succeed. Discuss (10)

    However it is argued that God is out of time and is transcendent, which allows him to have to power to be the uncaused causer. Aquinas maintained that everything in our world is contingent, so if there was a time when things did not exist; there must have been a time when nothing existed.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work