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

    There was a first cause, itself uncaused (God). Here the second premise is plausible. It is surely true that nothing can cause itself to exist, since the cause must always come before the effect, so the thing would have to exist before it existed, which is absurd.

  2. Explain the cosmological argument for existence of God

    There must be a first efficient cause, which is in itself uncaused. The focus of this argument is again on dependency, that everything depends upon something else to cause it. The difference between this argument and the first argument is that this argument is focused upon the things that causes

  1. Examine the strength of the cosmological argument for the existence of god

    This leads us to the belief in God. Lastly another strength of the cosmological argument, is that its simple and easy to understand. We can all see that the universe is, but still all the questions that are asked 'why it is?'

  2. Examine the main strengths and weakness of the Cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    Even more so, the idea of a first mover does not imply that this first mover be the God referred to by classical theism. The God of Muslims, Christians and Jews is told as being a caring, loving God who is still present and playing a vital part in our lives today.

  1. 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)

  2. The differences between the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument for the existence of ...

    If they agree, it's not necessarily based on God and that they believe that God is the designer of the world. They could just perhaps believe the idea of a designer but it may not be God. The Cosmological Argument, although it's a lot more confusing but you can cut

  1. Compare and contrast the contributions of Descartes and Humes on the issue of the ...

    For example the same way you talk about an apple being red is the same way Descartes talks about God existing. Kant argues that treating existence like a property don't make sense because he claims existence is not a predicate.

  2. Assess whether the cosmological argument proves the existence of God.

    wrote this to reinforce faith and belief to readers he assumed to be similar to him in some ways, and so would accept the God of classical theism as the cause, and by taking his argument out of context is rather unfair and unreasonable to Al-Ghazali.

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